Cleric v Druid, Wizard v Illusionist

[KeyIXTheHermit]

Hey everyone, I've got a question that you long-timers might be able to help me with.

I haven't really been playing C&C very long or very much, so there's still much I don't know.

One thing we've never done is played with Clerics and Wizards. My own setting is VERY low magic, so I removed those two character from the game (well, as player characters; I never stated *explicitly* that they don't exist, and we never saw them in the game, but I suppose they *could* exist).

We've been away for a bit, and I've been thinking about playing C&C again, and maybe doing things a little bit differently. However, one thing I'm uncertain about is this:

Are Cleric/Druid and Wizard/Illusionist balanced? Or are the sub-types generally weaker? (For the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that I'm disallowing Illusionist healing spells).

That's why I removed Cleric and Wizard originally: Wizards are boss, with crazy spells nothing like anything you'd ever see in my fantasy worlds. And Druids (called "Witches" and exclusively female) are *exactly* like nature magic in my world. My world may have Gods and Goddesses, but they NEVER make personal appearances, and never "prove" their existence.

With this brand new world I'm looking at putting together, I may be willing to bring in some more magic, but I'm trying to grasp the dynamics of the four types. It seems like Druids are clearly weaker than Clerics, and Illusionists are clearly weaker than Wizards... but I've never played all four character types, so I could be wrong. Are they weaker, stronger, or exactly the same in different ways? What are the balancing factors? Their spells seem inherently weaker.

[Bree_Yark]

If you think Illusionist are weaker you haven't used your imagination.

Major Image can duplicate a fireball, make a bridge for the characters to cross, make a dragon to fight next to you or an ogre to carry your loot.

[KeyIXTheHermit]

If you think Illusionist are weaker you haven't used your imagination.

make a bridge for the characters to cross

Seriously? It can allow you to defy gravity? :-/

Now you've got me thinking I should add "Rabbit" and "Duck" as new races, and "Wabbit Hunter" as a new class.

Hmm... this could work actually.

[mmbutter]

make a bridge for the characters to cross

Seriously? It can allow you to defy gravity? :-/

As long as the others players don't "disbelieve" then the bridge is real for them. And hangs around for a bit after the caster stops concentrating, so he can hustle over the bridge before it disappears.

[Treebore]

Illusionists do have the potential to do whatever they can imagine with their illusions, and as long as no one has a reason to disbelieve, its real. So when looked at, and played, with that in mind, they are actually the most powerful of all spell casters.

As for Druids being weaker than Clerics? No way! Effective use of their Animal Companion, or Companions, depending on how the Druid wants to do it, gives them a nice boost from level 1. Then once they get their own wild shapes to assume, well, lets just say I much prefer playing Druids over Clerics any day.

[KeyIXTheHermit]

make a bridge for the characters to cross

Seriously? It can allow you to defy gravity? :-/

As long as the others players don't "disbelieve" then the bridge is real for them. And hangs around for a bit after the caster stops concentrating, so he can hustle over the bridge before it disappears.

I don't mind "upping the magic ante" a *little* bit; that's the reason for this question.

But that's a bit much. Is that written into the rules, or is that a matter of GM taste? I mean, I know I can change anything I like, but do the rules actually say "the Illusionist can cause normal humans to defy physics" (or something along those lines), or is it just a more generic "if the characters believe, it's real to them," where a more reality-minded GM can take that to mean that they'll die from being breathed on by an Illusionary dragon -- but they died from a heart attack from fright, not from fire burns -- but giving them illusionary wings doesn't give them the power to fly (I suppose they could believe they were flying, but I'd be inclined to think they were running around on the ground flapping their arms and saying "I'm a bird! I'm a bird! )

[Giant2005]

make a bridge for the characters to cross

Seriously? It can allow you to defy gravity? :-/

As long as the others players don't "disbelieve" then the bridge is real for them. And hangs around for a bit after the caster stops concentrating, so he can hustle over the bridge before it disappears.

It doesn't matter how convinced someone is of an illusion, they cannot defy gravity because of it. Their mind has no control over gravity, so gravity doesn't care if they think there is a bridge there or not.

[Giant2005]

make a bridge for the characters to cross

Seriously? It can allow you to defy gravity? :-/

As long as the others players don't "disbelieve" then the bridge is real for them. And hangs around for a bit after the caster stops concentrating, so he can hustle over the bridge before it disappears.

I don't mind "upping the magic ante" a *little* bit; that's the reason for this question.

But that's a bit much. Is that written into the rules, or is that a matter of GM taste? I mean, I know I can change anything I like, but do the rules actually say "the Illusionist can cause normal humans to defy physics" (or something along those lines), or is it just a more generic "if the characters believe, it's real to them," where a more reality-minded GM can take that to mean that they'll die from being breathed on by an Illusionary dragon -- but they died from a heart attack from fright, not from fire burns -- but giving them illusionary wings doesn't give them the power to fly (I suppose they could believe they were flying, but I'd be inclined to think they were running around on the ground flapping their arms and saying "I'm a bird! I'm a bird! )

Damage inflicted by the spell causes damage to the character's psyche not their body. It is explicitly not a physical thing.

[Giant2005]

As for Druids being weaker than Clerics? No way! Effective use of their Animal Companion, or Companions, depending on how the Druid wants to do it, gives them a nice boost from level 1. Then once they get their own wild shapes to assume, well, lets just say I much prefer playing Druids over Clerics any day.

I agree with that whole-heartedly.
Not to mention the Druid's crazy experience table. I think Troll Lords were a little too generous with Druids in that regard.

[mmbutter]

From the CKG (emphasis mine):

The illusionist is a master of time and substance. His abilities transcend the simple “illusions” of a trickster in that the illusionist conjures material from the essence of the world around him. His “illusions” are not simple parlor tricks to fool the weak of mind, but are powerful incantations drawing upon his own powerful mind. He weaves these musings with magic drawn from the world around him, thereby fabricating the very stuff of reality. Illusionists can literally create something from nothing.

And later:

No mechanic exists in Castles & Crusades for disbelieving any spell. There would be no reason or justification for disbelieving anything, when anything is possible. To attempt such a thing invites disaster, as it weakens the targets’ mental ability to deal with the reality of what is coming at them. Castles & Crusades allows for various attribute checks and saving throws when encountering magic or magical effects. If someone attempts to “disbelieve,” then allow the player to make the saving throw he would normally make (this is not a second saving throw, just the normal saving throw), adding all the necessary bonuses or CL into the equation.

[mmbutter]

And for those who will now undoubtedly say "But the CKG are all optional rules, so we don't have to follow them," I will point to this from the PHB (again, emphasis mine):

An illusionist uses magic to alter the perceptions of others and even reality itself. This magic deceives the senses, creates false images and sounds, changes sensory qualities, affects the mind’s perceptions, and in some cases fashions arcane energies into something real.

[KeyIXTheHermit]

As for Druids being weaker than Clerics? No way! Effective use of their Animal Companion, or Companions, depending on how the Druid wants to do it, gives them a nice boost from level 1. Then once they get their own wild shapes to assume, well, lets just say I much prefer playing Druids over Clerics any day.

Thanks. I do hope that my difficulty understanding Illusionists doesn't completely overwhelm this thread... my main interest is simply understanding the power levels of all the magical characters and seeing how "equal" they are.

I'd also rather play a Druid over a Cleric, but in general I'd rather not have Clerics at all... I'd prefer to keep Theology out of my gaming entirely. I love Greek mythology as much as the next guy, but it's silly as hell to the modern reader, and I most certainly don't want to play it (at least, not with the gods intact).

My preferred style of gaming -- and one I luckily share with my two players -- is a world with virtually no magic stuff except for Wizards, who are either inherently evil or can easily become twisted by their power. Magic is naturally almost always in the hands of female characters... the "old man Wizard" trope doesn't exist (or is so rare as to be considered generally a myth). Players are fighters, thieves, bandits, anti-heroes, or retired soldiers. Armor is rare, particularly metal armor, as heroes don't walk around in armor in that world any more than people walk around in kevlar today... and if they do, you assume they are up to something bad and generally avoid them. Magic, where it exists, is powerful enough, but it's far more subtle. Often it's made to look "natural" rather than magical, but legitimate miracles (turning men into wild animals, etc) are possible.

So, from those humble beginnings I'm interested in trying out something a *little* broader, but nothing crazy. In our previous time playing C&C I disallowed Wizards, because shooting missiles from your fingertips is silly -- making the characters unable to move as they see pretty colors is not (which could be accomplished by shooting them with a blowdart poisoned with certain combinations of lotus or even simple hypnotism).

I saw a post on Facebook (D&D players) where a guy was looking for a monster that "ate magic items." The resulting conversation was so ridiculous that it actually embarrassed me. I'd prefer to avoid that kind of silliness.

On the whole, I much prefer to think of Illusionists as "hypnotists," as noted above. Being able to literally alter reality puts them (magically) on a level with Gods, which isn't what I was thinking when I first disallowed Wizards. If this is case (ruleswise), then I have a lot of re-thinking to do. :-/

One more thing: I don't really mind "what other people do." Even if we went to a con and played C&C, I'd be cool playing in a world of wild and woolly magic if that's what the GM put together (that said, I'd still play a Fighter or Barbarian). But we like C&C because it's a simple rules set, maximum fun with minimum fuss. If we're not playing "the game the way the designers intended," we're okay with that if we're all having fun (and we are). Games that are more designed along the lines of what we do certainly exist, but they have proven to be more difficult to understand, run, and play. We keep coming back to C&C because it's simple and fun. Also, I'm a fan of "classes" and "balance." I like the players having a "shtick" and knowing that the rules will generally help keep players from toe-stepping.

[mmbutter]

And, as a final thought - higher level Illusionists can also have the chance (1%, IIRC) of their "illusions" becoming real, physical objects that cannot be dispelled or will not go away when the spell ends. Even an illusion of a person has this chance of becoming a real, physical, living, breathing person.

[Buttmonkey]

make a bridge for the characters to cross

Seriously? It can allow you to defy gravity? :-/

As long as the others players don't "disbelieve" then the bridge is real for them. And hangs around for a bit after the caster stops concentrating, so he can hustle over the bridge before it disappears.

I just reread the Major Image spell description and I don't think it supports the position of the bridge being real. An illusion created with this spell is capable of inflicting damage, but I would not allow a bridge created with the spell to actually support weight.

[KeyIXTheHermit]

In this corner... mmbutter. And in this corner, Buttmonkey.

Fight clean, boys, and no punching below the belt.

[DING!]

[Giant2005]

From the CKG (emphasis mine):

The illusionist is a master of time and substance. His abilities transcend the simple “illusions” of a trickster in that the illusionist conjures material from the essence of the world around him. His “illusions” are not simple parlor tricks to fool the weak of mind, but are powerful incantations drawing upon his own powerful mind. He weaves these musings with magic drawn from the world around him, thereby fabricating the very stuff of reality. Illusionists can literally create something from nothing.

I don't think anyone would deny that Illusionists are capable of creating physical effects (I certainly wouldn't deny it at least), but that particular spell that was cited isn't capable of it. Things like Clone sure can however.
Major Image inflicts damage to the psyche, not physical damage. It is pretty obvious that spell isn't creating a physical force.

[Tadhg]

I absolutely do NOT allow illusionists to create anything physical. He creates a fantastically accurate bridge. It's perfect to fool enemies who might believe and several fall to their death before the rest realize it's just an "illusion". NOT a real bridge.

I love the class and give PCs lots of liberties on the spells and how they work.

I don't however use the newer version of this class, it's just a little too ridiculous, IMO.

[alcyone]

I would be surprised if any effort had been made to balance the classes.

[KeyIXTheHermit]

I don't however use the newer version of this class, it's just a little too ridiculous, IMO.

Are you referring to them being able to heal injury? My jury is still quite out on that one, personally. OT1H, I like the idea of another class having healing capabilities, if for no other reason it means the Clerics and Druids can use some of those spell slots on something else.

OTOH, it seems conceptually a bit silly.

With my settings being so immensely low magic, I've often thought that I could theoretically ban all magic classes except Illusionist (in which case I'd rename them) and then I'd have a game with minimal magic, yet spellcasters would have all of the powers I need them to have (attacking and healing). Magic would just be magic, and not, "godly magic" and "magical magic." The only thing that kept me from trying it, honestly, is that I love my Witches so much. They make their way into every fantasy game I play in some form.

[Rigon]

In my games, illusionists are called sorcerers and they cast sorcery. Which is just as real as a wizards magic.

R-

[KeyIXTheHermit]

In my games, illusionists are called sorcerers and they cast sorcery. Which is just as real as a wizards magic.

R-

Innnnn-t'resting! In the old game where Wizards were disallowed, I had also renamed Illusionist into Sorcerer! (Well, more commonly Sorceress, but both existed).

[Tadhg]

I don't however use the newer version of this class, it's just a little too ridiculous, IMO.

Are you referring to them being able to heal injury? My jury is still quite out on that one, personally. OT1H, I like the idea of another class having healing capabilities, if for no other reason it means the Clerics and Druids can use some of those spell slots on something else.

OTOH, it seems conceptually a bit silly.

With my settings being so immensely low magic, I've often thought that I could theoretically ban all magic classes except Illusionist (in which case I'd rename them) and then I'd have a game with minimal magic, yet spellcasters would have all of the powers I need them to have (attacking and healing). Magic would just be magic, and not, "godly magic" and "magical magic." The only thing that kept me from trying it, honestly, is that I love my Witches so much. They make their way into every fantasy game I play in some form.

Yep, healing except for psyche doesn't work for me.

Joe is stabbed. Bill the illusionist tells Joe, I'll heal ya buddy. Joe knows Bill is an illusionist (to me that kills the whole bloody idea of how illusionists can use their trickery to help fellow party members). But let's say Bill really believes that Joe can heal him.

Bill casts cure light wounds on Joe. Joe feels better, gets up and walks around a bit. The rest of the party notice that Joe's guts are hanging out and is bleeding profusely.

Nice work Bill!

[Rigon]

I don't however use the newer version of this class, it's just a little too ridiculous, IMO.

Are you referring to them being able to heal injury? My jury is still quite out on that one, personally. OT1H, I like the idea of another class having healing capabilities, if for no other reason it means the Clerics and Druids can use some of those spell slots on something else.

OTOH, it seems conceptually a bit silly.

With my settings being so immensely low magic, I've often thought that I could theoretically ban all magic classes except Illusionist (in which case I'd rename them) and then I'd have a game with minimal magic, yet spellcasters would have all of the powers I need them to have (attacking and healing). Magic would just be magic, and not, "godly magic" and "magical magic." The only thing that kept me from trying it, honestly, is that I love my Witches so much. They make their way into every fantasy game I play in some form.

Yep, healing except for psyche doesn't work for me.

Joe is stabbed. Bill the illusionist tells Joe, I'll heal ya buddy. Joe knows Bill is an illusionist (to me that kills the whole bloody idea of how illusionists can use their trickery to help fellow party members). But let's say Bill really believes that Joe can heal him.

Bill casts cure light wounds on Joe. Joe feels better, gets up and walks around a bit. The rest of the party notice that Joe's guts are hanging out and is bleeding profusely.

Nice work Bill!

That would be the case if you only considered hit points as physical damage, which I don't. Hit points are a combination of stamina, luck, physical endurance, and some other abstract things. Plus, the illusionist can use his magic to manipulate time/scape to a time when "Joe" was hale.

I find it funny that people who have no qualms with wizards changing the laws of physics, go ape poop when it is suggested that an illusionist's magic can do similar things. I think the Trolls do a fantastic job of differentiating between wizard's magic and illusionists' magic. Read the sections on illusion magic in the PHB on pages 69 and 72 of the 6th print and pages 50 to 53 in the CKG 2nd print. The CKG section is, by far, one of the best treatises on illusion magic that I've ever read and has completely changed how I allow illusionists to be played in my game.

R-

[KeyIXTheHermit]

Bill casts cure light wounds on Joe. Joe feels better, gets up and walks around a bit. The rest of the party notice that Joe's guts are hanging out and is bleeding profusely.

Nice work Bill!

Yeah, completely agree. Like I said, I'm not against an "arcane" caster having healing ability, but defining it in the purview of the an Illusionist is where it begins to fall apart.

If Wizards weren't already so over-the-top powerful, I wouldn't mind Wizards having it. I realize that in most modern games Wizards can't heal because "that's how D&D did it," and I realize what a powerful force precedence is, but it has been done. I can see no logcial reason that the study of magic can't include healing. If anything, that feels far more in line with how our own world actually worked.

You always see Wizards in fantasy games with their books and beakers, reading formulas and mixing components... that looks more like science than magic, and our knowledge and advances in healing the sick come from science, not superstition.

[Tadhg]

That would be the case if you only considered hit points as physical damage, which I don't. Hit points are a combination of stamina, luck, physical endurance, and some other abstract things.
R-

So, when Joe is stabbed - he takes no physical damage and his great stamina, endurance and some abstract things keep him from bleeding out?

Heh, I'll assume you include some physical damage when assessing hit damage, yes?

Plus, the illusionist can use his magic to manipulate time/scape to a time when "Joe" was hale.
R-

Whoa, don't know that spell - sounds like a high powered wizard's spell.

If that is an illusionist spell, it reinforces my thinking about the class. Even if I accept the "latest" concept of illusionary magic - it bugs me that this class can do many things that the cleric and wizard can do - as Tree mentioned above they can be the most powerful casters.

So to me, that's unbalanced and as I mentioned above, it just strikes me that some spells seem ridiculous.

I don't have the CKG 2nd or the PH 6th - but I don't use the CKG for the most part, so it doesn't matter to me what it says about the illusionist magic.

Anyway, we certainly dis-agree about this class and I look forward to gaming with you again.

[I won't play an illusionist, but I should to try and munchkin it to death in your game! ]

[Penny-Whistle]

Love the description of your game world. I prefer that kind of thing myself. Not interested in alignment or gods. And honestly the idea of metal armour just seems ridiculous. In the past I have even resisted buying it when I could afford it because I did not want to play a character in a tin can. Luckily my current CK was understanding. He even suggested the armour could be something other than metal. Made of a hard carapace or chiton like substance.

Plenty of science backs up how powerful the placebo effect is, so for me having an illusionist do heals is fine -- especially because there is a chance it will fail. In our world the success rate of anti-depressants is equivalent or less than placebo. Some people truly are cured by people 'laying on hands.'

I also really like the idea of witches and am a little disappointed that so few games have created a magic system around that kind of concept. I hope this won't sound harsh but rather informative of another person's lived experience. Your description of magic being primarily in the domain of women does make me pretty uncomfortable. It feels a little like a gender stereotype. If your player characters are all male then the action might hint of misogyny. When I make up NPCs and monsters I sometimes randomly roll for the sex after creation to make sure I have a balance. The results are sometimes eye opening and show me that I, like everyone else in the world, also sometimes unconsciously assign gender to certain constructs/roles.

[Rigon]

That would be the case if you only considered hit points as physical damage, which I don't. Hit points are a combination of stamina, luck, physical endurance, and some other abstract things.
R-

So, when Joe is stabbed - he takes no physical damage and his great stamina, endurance and some abstract things keep him from bleeding out?

Heh, I'll assume you include some physical damage when assessing hit damage, yes?

Yes, I do.

Plus, the illusionist can use his magic to manipulate time/scape to a time when "Joe" was hale.
R-

Whoa, don't know that spell - sounds like a high powered wizard's spell.

You know that spell; it's called Cure light wounds.

If that is an illusionist spell, it reinforces my thinking about the class. Even if I accept the "latest" concept of illusionary magic - it bugs me that this class can do many things that the cleric and wizard can do - as Tree mentioned above they can be the most powerful casters.

So to me, that's unbalanced and as I mentioned above, it just strikes me that some spells seem ridiculous.

I don't have the CKG 2nd or the PH 6th - but I don't use the CKG for the most part, so it doesn't matter to me what it says about the illusionist magic.

The explanations for the differences should be found in the 4th print and up. So unless you are using the 3rd print and down, you should be able to locate the relevant sections.

Anyway, we certainly dis-agree about this class and I look forward to gaming with you again.

[I won't play an illusionist, but I should to try and munchkin it to death in your game! ]

Can't wait, but remember, anything you can do as a player, I can do as a CK, only more so.

R-

[KeyIXTheHermit]

Love the description of your game world. I prefer that kind of thing myself. Not interested in alignment or gods. And honestly the idea of metal armour just seems ridiculous. In the past I have even resisted buying it when I could afford it because I did not want to play a character in a tin can. Luckily my current CK was understanding. He even suggested the armour could be something other than metal. Made of a hard carapace or chiton like substance.

Thanks for the kind words! Yes, it does sound like we'd enjoy playing the same games. "A character in a tin can." Lol! That's my phrase word for word!

I also really like the idea of witches and am a little disappointed that so few games have created a magic system around that kind of concept. I hope this won't sound harsh but rather informative of another person's lived experience. Your description of magic being primarily in the domain of women does make me pretty uncomfortable. It feels a little like a gender stereotype. If your player characters are all male then the action might hint of misogyny.

Since you asked (and were so nice about, thank you!), I'd appreciate being able to clarify. This is off-topic of the main post, so everyone else can just skip this:

There might be stereotypes in my games. I'm not above using tropes that have existed for decades (nay, centuries!) if it befits the feel of my game. The evil Sorceress can be traced back at least as far as Circe (turning Odysseus' men into pigs, also subtly referenced in my earlier post), but the Barbarian thud-and-blunder warrior is equally a stereotype, as is the "good and true holy knight on a quest." Stereotypes aren't only stereotypes when they involve women, but for some reason they are the only stereotypes that gamers seem to notice. Heck, even the Old Man Wizard is a stereotype (traced back to Merlin, who also had the Evil Female Sorceress stereotype as a student, Morgan Le Faye!). (Edit: You could make a convincing argument that Moses was the original Old Man Wizard, turning staffs to snakes and parting entire seas for people to walk across).

So, sure, I consider "stereotypes" a sort of shorthand. My evil Sorcerer that is the bane of my current game is of a Middle Eastern type culture, as he's based on "Abdul Al-Hazared" of Necronomicon fame (and a lot of Persian-style mythology and setting has made its way into my game... no djinn yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if one shows up at some point).

Now, that said, regarding the role of women in my games: I've always been most fond of female characters in adventure fiction. I have the entire run of Spider-Woman from the '70's, Red Sonja from the same era, and George Perez' spectacular take on Wonder Woman. Mind you, I'm talking about the actual issues in their original form; not reprints (although I do have those, too, for reading purposes). I have the entire Buffy TV series on DVD twice, one set unopened. I have the Red Sonja and Raven Swordmistress of Chaos novel series from the 80's. The Witchblade TV series, the Raven spinoff from Highlander, even the original Lynda Carter Wonder Woman series. I have the entire Xena series (but not Hercules). Be it in books, movies, comics, or whatever form, if it has a strong and competent female character as the lead, I either have it or probably will be getting it. (Edit: A recent new addition to my collection is a copy of Stan Lee's "The Superhero Women." A great read for students of the history of female characters in comics up that point!).

People who know me in real life know this, so they know my shorthand stereotyping isn't intended to be dismissive, but just the opposite: it shows a knowledge of history while focusing on powerful female characters. You'll find no women in the nunnery raising children in my games: they are strong, competent Warriors, Sorceresses of great power, sneaky Thieves as good as their male counterparts, or inherently magical beings who understand the natural world in ways a man never could. I want to stop short of saying I am "elevating" female characters; more correctly I just find them more interesting, so they just tend to dominate. The players can play males, and I won't penalize them for doing so, but most of the NPC's they meet will be female. (If anything, my games hint more at misandry than misogyny!).

One of their favorite NPC's, in fact, was a "Captain of the King's Guard" who started out quite mean to them (as she saw them as rabble and riff-raff) and then over time grew friendly with them as she saw they were actually good characters. It didn't help that she had a prejudice against one of the PC's from the start, because someone of his race had cost her an eye when she was a young soldier, but she learned to overcome her prejudice the more she got to know the PC. But, yes, the Captain of the King's Guard was a woman with one eye, who had worked her way up to that position by being totally bad-arse.

So, yeah, that's females in my campaign. As far as players go, I currently have two players usually, with an additional player on occasion. When it's just the three of us, there's one female player (my wife). When there's four us, there are two female players (my wife and the other male player's female friend).

[Penny-Whistle]

Cool.

I got the idea of randomly rolling the sex of characters from a story I heard about the production of Ridley Scott's Alien (1979) He gave the characters last names and randomly divided them up because any of those characters could be male or female. It is the same in games. A shop keeper can be either sex. The big bad can be male or female. If a person rolls a fair dice to decide then another bonus is you know about half the world will be female.

[KeyIXTheHermit]

Cool.

I got the idea of randomly rolling the sex of characters from a story I heard about the production of Ridley Scott's Alien (1979) He gave the characters last names and randomly divided them up because any of those characters could be male or female. It is the same in games. A shop keeper can be either sex. The big bad can be male or female. If a person rolls a fair dice to decide then another bonus is you know about half the world will be female.

I'm fine with that for NPC's, even though I wouldn't do it. Especially for faceless and nameless characters (the Innkeeper, the Shopkeeper, a random informant being questioned), who cares about their gender, or if they even have one at all?

More important characters that are likely to be around and play a significant part in the story, though, I tend to have a certain image in my mind. Usually, but not always, it's female. As I noted, the Big Bad in our current game is both Male and a Sorcerer.

I would never force a player to roll randomly for their character's gender, though; I want them to be comfortable playing the part they want to play. After five years of gaming, my wife still only wants to play Elf Thieves or "Lightly Armored" Barbarian Women. Finally, just a few days ago, she finally said she might be open to playing something else, and my jaw just dropped.