I always play men, but I don't even know why. I really enjoy games like Beyond Good & Evil, Mirror's Edge or Tomb Raider, and think that the female protagonist adds a lot to the game (where for example Uncharted is just plain boring with its thirtysomething stubble-bearded wisecracking action hero).
But when I have the choice, I always go for males. Maybe it's because I get to decide what the character does, and it feels more like my alter ego and less like a character whose story I'm experiencing.

I guess it's also the fact that I have to create her myself. It's kinda embarrassing because then your character tells so much about yourself.

I'm going to play a woman (Nord or Imprerial, depends on the looks differences) as sixy as possible.

women are more simple than everyone thinks....

they are a mixture of emotions, sure they are tender and loving but when they hate or get jealous they turn into demonic fiends that will stop at nothing but the utter destruction and humiliation of their target

that's why women in power usually are much more prone to evil than men, and if they turn evil they are much more vile (I could list infamous women through history but thats boring )

and always women keep the goals of:

1-money (preferably from some one else)
2-power (preferably through seduction or emotional leverage on sons, husbands, lovers...etc )
3-death to all competition (as long as they don't get caught women are more prone to murdering everyone that stands in their way)

thats why men have a hard time understanding women

and that's why I don't RP one

sorry for the wall of text, and sorry ladies I know you want to destroy me now but you can't get me :teehee:

Man all the way, I'm not into all that hentai [censored]. I just want to be a warrior who kicks ass.

Then what, to you, is the point of roleplaying? :biggrin:

Ditto. As for the whole marriage thing, not sure I'll bother with it but if I do it'll be marrying a male npc.

The gender I choose usually depends on the race im playing. Ill pretty much never play as a female Orc.

I actually play female characters as if I were them, just as a I do male characters in a lot of my games.

Right now in New Vegas i'm playing a young girl named Penny who is addicted to Med-X and spends all her money on it. I'm super poor and living on the streets of Free Side. I have bad eye sight, easily broken bones and low strength. She's a flawed character and I like to get in her head.

Is it weird? Maybe. Perverted? Hardly.

I think people who have things like that to say are just extremely insecure about themselves.

On the "should Argonians have briasts?" question:

The main argument against Argonians having briasts has been: 1. Argonians are reptiles; 2. Reptiles don't have briasts; 3. Therefore, Argonian's don't have briasts.

There are a couple of ways to resist this:

First, it's not obvious that Argonians are reptiles. Firstly, it's important to note that Reptile is not a clade in the strict sense, since it is paraphyletic - "reptile" typically means, descendants from the original reptile that are neither bird nor mammal. Rather, the justification for carving off some descendants from that original reptile (while keeping others in the Reptile category) is phenetic - it's because these creatures typically possess certain morphologies, physiologies, developmental mechanisms, ecological traits, and so on. But the emphasis here should be on "typically". I am no expert on reptiles but it seems to me that for any given feature possessed only by reptiles, there are non-reptiles that also possess that feature. Scales are not uniquely reptile. Egg-laying is not uniquely reptile. Cold-bloodedness is not uniquely reptile. It's not clear that there is any single feature of Argonians which is possessed only by reptiles. Argonians could plausibly be scaly, egg-laying, cold-blooded birds or mammals.

Second, one might concede that Argonians are reptiles because they have a few features which are typically possessed only by reptiles. Nevertheless, one might think that even if no actual reptile has briasts, there is nothing particularly deep about that fact. Reptiles could easily have evolved briasts, even while maintaining their other distinctive features. You might think that ancestors of Argonians were more successful because their young were nourished by some secretion from skin glands. Individuals with skin glands that made it easier for the young to partake were more reproductively successful; it is easier for young to partake when the skin glands are larger and more developed. Thus, the evolution of briasts. Of course, this is basically just Darwin's theory of mammary gland evolution, and it has been largely discredited, due to the existence of lactating egg-layers. Nevertheless, it's not an unintelligible biological possibility, and it certainly doesn't seem like something ruled out by TES fiction.

So, either Argonians are not reptiles; or, even if they are, it's biologically plausible that Argonians evolved briasts.

Of course argonians are reptiles. I don't see why anybody would argue against that. They're humanoid reptiles, I thought it was quite obvious the first time I saw them.

Lore suggests they are related to Hist trees, so they are apparently anthropomorphic arboreal creatures that might or might not be cold-blooded.

In any case, mammaries covered in scales and without nipbles are nasty.

Interesting point. Although the briast is typical of mammals and not reptiles or birds I can see how as a humanoid lifeform they may have briasts, perhaps not to feed their young, that doesnt seem to match the egg culture unless of course they birth live young. Nevertheless, they may have evolved briasts to mimic human females as a survival mechanism among other humanoids where briasts are the norm among females. That said, I doubt that Argonian briasts are capable of producing milk. As to whether they are warm blooded or cold blooded, I would assume that Argonians are cold blooded due to their apparent reptilian physiology. And Todd's reference to Argonians as "lizards" suggesting Argonians are reptilian humanoids.

It was never said that our reptiles aren't related to Hist trees. Maybe they are.

srk is absolutely right, just because they're reptiles doesn't mean they can't have briasts, and vice versa. I'd like to point out the wiki article on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus, generally regarded as one of the missing links between mammals and reptiles.

It doesn't matter, though. In Morrowind they didn't have briasts. Maybe for Skyrim they'll finally decide which version is correct and then stick with it, put in some lore to explain it and make it canon.

Yeah, the egg-playing is a problem for the adaptive value of lactation. But while it would be unusual for a parent to nourish a young through the egg membrane and by secretions from skin glands, it doesn't seem biologically unintelligible. And given that we're speculating about the biology of a fictional world, it doesn't seem like these biological possibilities should be off the table.

As for the mimicing suggestion: it's not clear to me what the fitness benefits come from here. Why would Argonians with briasts be more fit in populations containing both Argonian and Human/Merish females? I wouldn't have thought that having larger briasts makes a difference to how an Argonian female is treated by Humans/Mer. For instance, I don't think that would make Argonian females more attractive to male Humans/Mer. Having larger briasts might make them more attractive to other Argonian males, but then those selective forces are at work in populations not containing Human/Merish females.

In any event, I'm sure there are plenty of plausible hypotheses for why Argonians, while also being reptiles, could have evolved briasts.

Exactly, gpstr, you nailed it!

Edit: Just for the record, in Skyrim, some characters will be played as male and others as female, so I voted for both.

Sibyl, my shaman-type will be the first character I will guide, or direct through the game. She will not be an avatar of me, but, rather, an avatar for me.

The choices she will make in the game, will represent the choices she, as that particular character would make, not the choices I would make. She will have her own defined set of values to follow.

gpstr gets it. :foodndrink:

A second character would be roleplayed somewhat differently. Again, these characters are not me.

I usually play a male character, just seems normal. Occasionally I'll make a female one though.
I wonder how many women make male characters??

I usually play a male character, just seems normal. Occasionally I'll make a female one though.
I wonder how many women make male characters??

Well Argonians aren't really reptiles. The females do briast feed, and as far as I know, they are not cold blooded. They are some kind of hybrid race that shouldn't be compared to Earth style lizards.

Chances are im going to have multiple characters, each a different gender, each a different race.

I usually play as female but maybe my first Dovahkiin will be a dude.

*raises hand* I do! I always play males in TES games. I've tried to make female characters on multiple occassions but they never last longer than an hour before I perform console-surgery on them. I think the only female I ever played was when I played Qarls Underground for MW...

Then again I usually always choose males in any game that lets me decide the gender of my characters.... except Ego Draconis, I was a girl in there. And Fable2. Fable3 I played the Prince. I'll shut up now.

Teheeehehe

Also, I'll play some random male cliche Nord.

In real life, I'm straight and a man, but I'm camp enough to feel comfortable playing as a woman. In fact, in a lot of games, I much prefer playing as the female equivalent of the main character, like in Mass Effect and Dragon Age 2.

Only only woman I have ever played was in Fallout 3 and I based her on Selene from Underworld cos shes hard. Sonja from Rise of the Lycans would be a a good try.

May be tempted to make a character like Asajj Ventress or Ayla Secura cos they too are hard.
Or perhaps Arwen from LOTR.

But mostly male for me