| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One factor that I’ve not seen brought up often enough is the fact that sexism is more covertly embedded and societally ‘acceptable’ than many other prejudices, so for me it has an additional status that does need to be recognised. I note that the Erastil article has a lot of gender-based ‘traditional values’ stuff – but not one word regarding homosexuals. One would assume that Erastil (as portrayed in the article) would be vehemently opposed to non-progeny producing relationships, yet there’s just no mention of this prejudice at all. I would lay even money that far fewer posters would feel comfortable ‘defending’ a write-up of an overtly ethnically racist or anti-homosexual LG god.
+1 Thanks for expressing that thought; much more eloquently than I could have.
|
There’s also a mechanical issue here: is it feasible that society can be male-dominated, when mechanically there’s absolutely no difference in strength and stamina between men and women? There are no ability adjustments for gender – imagine the effect his would have on say, sports, in our society – so I have a harder time figuring out what Erastil’s rationale is for placing men at the centre of the household – makes no sense to me.
Duh, it's the same reason that ran in our societies for millenia.
Women give birth -> children perpetuate our society/culture/economy/species -> women need to be protected -> men are the ones who fight -> if men fight, then men should make decisions
That's an abridged version on how the social order was established in our civilization.
Of course, fantasy RPGs kinda kick that order in the groin from page 1, with having gender equality for adventurers and gender inequality in almost every other sphere of life (imagine we had dragons and orcs in medieval Europe, and now try imagining girls in full plate trotting off to face them. Wouldn't happen, wouldn't it ?).
To be fair, Golarion is trying to leap over this by making many societies for more gender-neutral than medieval societies were. It somewhat lessens the disconnect between fully suffraged female adventurers kicking it off right next to "sit back and nurse kids" rural/urban women.
This particular problem was excellently handled in Ars Magica - the wizards lived outside (or rather beside) the feudal society, and funny things happened when female mages got to interact with the regular society, which had hard time understanding the idea of an independent woman with rights equal to a man. Ah, Ars Magica, what an amazing setting it is on oh so many levels ...
Also, isn't there this priestess of Erastil in the Pathfinder Society book that asserts that the faith used to be more matriarchal?Steelfiredragon: I don't think Erastil is into force and blackmail, at all. Those are Evil things.
I think Erastil has Good intentions, but believes in narrower social roles than what our (more cosmopolitan, more Chaotic) society has come to expect.
Social roles, though, change from society to society.
In Real Life: Hopi (agrarian since pre-Columbian times) have traditionally been Matrilinar. English (agrarian since pre-Roman times) have traditionally been Patrilinear.
A Hopi son insisting on inheriting fields, home and household goods ahead of his sisters would have been a scandal to the community. An English daughter insisting on inheriting fields, home and household goods ahead of her brothers would have been a scandal to the community.Both Hopi and English are agrarian, Lawful communities, and most likely Good people (I will try to emulate Anne Frank and believe people are basically Good at heart).
Mostly I'm trying to show how, using a RL example, Erastil can be a LG deity, and still have narrow roles for people, roles that some people will find too constricting and that others will see as reassuring.
There is indeed. Ilthuna Vardsdottir, though she has been excommunicated and forced into exile - so at least the priests where she started out would appear rather sexist.
(Sorry for including such a long quote, erasing things on is a pain on the iPod.)
One factor that I’ve not seen brought up often enough is the fact that sexism is more covertly embedded and societally ‘acceptable’ than many other prejudices, so for me it has an additional status that does need to be recognised. I note that the Erastil article has a lot of gender-based ‘traditional values’ stuff – but not one word regarding homosexuals. One would assume that Erastil (as portrayed in the article) would be vehemently opposed to non-progeny producing relationships, yet there’s just no mention of this prejudice at all. I would lay even money that far fewer posters would feel comfortable ‘defending’ a write-up of an overtly ethnically racist or anti-homosexual LG god.
From my perspective, it seems that you are magnifying Erastil's reactions and then using that magnified reaction to explain why you are modifying the deity while I just don't choose think that Erastil, as described, would have that intense of a reaction so he doesn't really need to be altered.
I have no idea what is best for other games, so I can't say it is wrong that a group changes Erastil or any other thing to work better for them.
However, it has felt that some have been somewhat trying to push that it should be modified in other people's games as well. While I believe that Erastil's viewpoint is outdated, it seems to me that the reactions that come to him seem to be more intolerant of Erastil than he is of adventurers, homosexuals, strong women, and weak men.
From my viewpoint, The reaction of removing the distasteful opinion from him is pretty much the same as another group removing references to gay and lesbian couplings in the setting just because they don't feel that has a place in a game they are trying to have fun in. I neither can argue with them because I don't know their group, but I also would argue against the demand that Paizo should exclude such references in their products in the future. Both seem like they are trying to do the exact same thing.
However, it has felt that some have been somewhat trying to push that it should be modified in other people's games as well. While I believe that Erastil's viewpoint is outdated, it seems to me that the reactions that come to him seem to be more intolerant of Erastil than he is of adventurers, homosexuals, strong women, and weak men.
+1
The female paladin bit IS interesting, as Golarion is one of the few settings to actually have female paladin deities. The only other one I can think of is Eberron.
Compare it to Forgotten Realms, where the only female goddesses tended to be very infuriatingly "female" to the point of insult. You have your sexy goddess of magic who sleeps with everyone, your goddess of sex, your goddess of "Is so catty you can't even imagine," and your goddesses of being an evil woman. That was about it. Golarion is a huge breath of fresh air compared to that.
The female paladin bit IS interesting, as Golarion is one of the few settings to actually have female paladin deities. The only other one I can think of is Eberron.
Compare it to Forgotten Realms, where the only female goddesses tended to be very infuriatingly "female" to the point of insult. You have your sexy goddess of magic who sleeps with everyone, your goddess of sex, your goddess of "Is so catty you can't even imagine," and your goddesses of being an evil woman. That was about it. Golarion is a huge breath of fresh air compared to that.
I kinda disagree with the Forgotten Realms, the only issue I have with FR is that there were way too many deities... but you had deities for just about every concept and quite a few deities female and male that were good choices for paladins.
but you had deities for just about every concept and quite a few deities female and male that were good choices for paladins.
All hail the Red Knight!
|
I am glad your group could come to an equitable solution Ambrus.
I think in Golarion the people who would ask of a cleric or paladin "What did that person do to earn this god's favor?" would find themselves disagreeing, too, about doctrines of faith. What we know from the write-ups isn't necessarily in-game information, so an NPC asking of a cleric "What would Erastil do?" would find the answer varying based on which cleric she asked.
In other words, what Paizo writers say about the gods isn't always going to line up with what NPCs say in-game; what happens in-game doesn't need to conform to the setting 100%, and frankly, I like it when GMs and players change things! What a boring game it would be if I couldn't discover something new or different in the approach to playing, whether it is a new home-made monster or a change in doctrine.
Creative Director
|
Nobody is excluding gamers here. Character concepts are being constrained a bit (ie. you can't be a female Paladin of Erestil, but there are plenty of other gods you can be a female Paladin of - so, no big deal).but I don't see why one would object to his very existence, as there are plenty of religions, current and historical, that subscribe to such a view.Because it prevents female characters from faithfully championing Erastil's portfolio while being "independent-minded" or while participating in regular adventuring duties without also conflicting directly with their god's tenets. Should a cleric of Erastil, either male or female, who advocates that a wife leave her abusive husband loose his divine powers because it conflicts with the god's tenet that women "should defer to and support their husbands"? It's not just a fluffy tidbit; it can actually hinder players' enjoyment of the setting.
One could respond back that Iomadae is also sexist. She only allows females to be priests, paladins, etc. Sexism goes both ways.I believe that it'd be a case of two-wrongs-don't-make-a-right. Reverse sexism equally excludes another segment of gamers. Why is that desirable?
Sure, anyone could just change the details they don't like. I'm just wondering why those details are there in the first place.
I'm pretty sure there COULD be female paladins of Erastil... they're just not as common as female paladins of Torag, Sarenrae, or Iomedae.
|
Creative Director
|
(imagine we had dragons and orcs in medieval Europe, and now try imagining girls in full plate trotting off to face them. Wouldn't happen, wouldn't it ?).
Actually, I have a much easier time imagining women trotting off in full plate to fight than I do imagining real-world dragons. That might just be me though.
|
|
(imagine we had dragons and orcs in medieval Europe, and now try imagining girls in full plate trotting off to face them. Wouldn't happen, wouldn't it ?).Actually, I have a much easier time imagining women trotting off in full plate to fight than I do imagining real-world dragons. That might just be me though.
Replace "dragons" with "dinosaurs", should be easier for you ;)
|
(imagine we had dragons and orcs in medieval Europe, and now try imagining girls in full plate trotting off to face them. Wouldn't happen, wouldn't it ?).Actually, I have a much easier time imagining women trotting off in full plate to fight than I do imagining real-world dragons. That might just be me though.
Why are you implying that there weren't dragons and orcs in medieval Europe? It's silly to deny the blatant truth.
|
|
My issue with Erastil being sexist is that it’s a bit boring, it’s not fun to roleplay, and it potentially opens the door for less-enlightened roleplayers to behave in a boorish manner, espousing attitudes that I have no time for under the guise of “that’s what the writeup says”.
It’s a shame overall, as the writeup is good (as they always are), but I know I’m going to have to edit it before I have it to one of my players and make Erastil conservative, but not sexist.
+1.
That's an important concern. You've got to know your players. It can be very easy for some people to use the excuse of role-playing to attack other people's characters at the table*, and Erastil's write up can lead some players to justify themselves that way instead of the traditional "it's what my character would do" excuse for bad behavior.
If this issue comes up for me the next time I go to a con, I'll check back on these boards and tell y'all about it.
*
|
|
(imagine we had dragons and orcs in medieval Europe, and now try imagining girls in full plate trotting off to face them. Wouldn't happen, wouldn't it ?).Actually, I have a much easier time imagining women trotting off in full plate to fight than I do imagining real-world dragons. That might just be me though.
I don't think it's just you. History seems to agree with you.
Haven't found any dragons yet, though there are komodo dragons that are pretty deadly. They don't inhabit western Europe, though.
|
|
Guys, you aren't seriously using Joan of Arc as an example of a woman's role in a medieval society, do you ?
That's not what you wrote. You wrote "imagine girls in full-plate going off to fight." James did just that, and I imagined it, too. It has happened, and Joan was successful in several important battles.
Of course it wasn't traditional, but it wasn't impossible.|
|
It was impossible. Joan was an exception, and is famous exactly because of that. Exceptions have it easier to reach history annals and achieve iconic status in the popular culture.
In the medieval Europe, women never fought as part of any organized military force. It wasn't "not traditional", it was impossible due to being outside of the culture and law - just like today it would be impossible (or actually plain suicidal) for a woman to walk around in a mini skirt in Saudi Arabia.
The fantasy pseudo-medieval RPGs, for sake of not being hit with "gender inequality" argument, create worlds where adventuring women/homosexuals/minorities enjoy equal rights and behave just like they would in contemporary society. It's an awful disconnect from what was really the case 500 years ago. In Golarion, this disconnect is somewhat mitigated, but still sometimes it makes me cringe. Still, not Paizo's fault, if they made a game where men would chase after dragons and women PCs would be prohibited, we would have a real flamewar here :)
Yeah, I don't really see how real-world medieval Europe being different than fantasy world Golarion is a disconnect at all, really. Even looking "realistically", in a world with magic like Golarion, I'd expect it to be much closer to the modern world than to medieval Europe.
it is common that religions favor one gender over the other,(in the real world) and building a fantasy religion on that seems pretty resonable. even computer games does that, take dragon age as an example, only females can be clericks in that game, by building a fantasy religion on themes from the real world(like having a jesus kind of saint/ saying that one gender is sinfull and so on, gives a bit of realism to the game and actually aids in building a beliable illusion.
i personally take no offence of a fictive religion favioring one gender over an other, its only a game and if you dont like that part just ignore it
it is common that religions favor one gender over the other,(in the real world) and building a fantasy religion on that seems pretty resonable. even computer games does that, take dragon age as an example, only females can be clericks in that game, by building a fantasy religion on themes from the real world(like having a jesus kind of saint/ saying that one gender is sinfull and so on, gives a bit of realism to the game and actually aids in building a beliable illusion.
i personally take no offence of a fictive religion favioring one gender over an other, its only a game and if you dont like that part just ignore it
I'd just like to mention that Jesus never called women the "sinful gender" in the Bible. Various Christians, yes, but Christ, no. Just thought I'd share!
It was impossible. Joan was an exception...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impossible
I like Erastil's writeup and the rest of the gods - not being whitewashed, modern sensibility friendly, generic deities.
Really? There's one deity that likes conservative gender roles and it's all "OH THE SEXISM IT RUINS MY GAME?"
I guess I'm lucky that I have a group that likes a game world to be all messy like the real world is, with all the -isms and sometimes with the good mixed in with the bad... Do otherwise if you like, but I and my group appreciate Golarion and its gods and their vibe...
Contributor
|
One factor that I’ve not seen brought up often enough is the fact that sexism is more covertly embedded and societally ‘acceptable’ than many other prejudices, so for me it has an additional status that does need to be recognised. I note that the Erastil article has a lot of gender-based ‘traditional values’ stuff – but not one word regarding homosexuals. One would assume that Erastil (as portrayed in the article) would be vehemently opposed to non-progeny producing relationships, yet there’s just no mention of this prejudice at all. I would lay even money that far fewer posters would feel comfortable ‘defending’ a write-up of an overtly ethnically racist or anti-homosexual LG god.+1 Thanks for expressing that thought; much more eloquently than I could have.
I would equally enjoy kicking the s*%# out of Erastil followers and clergy who were down on homosexuals. I never get to beat the living crap out of such folk in my real life; so, in my fantasy life it would be quite cathartic.
|
Contributor
|
My issue with Erastil being sexist is that it’s a bit boring, it’s not fun to roleplay, and it potentially opens the door for less-enlightened roleplayers to behave in a boorish manner, espousing attitudes that I have no time for under the guise of “that’s what the writeup says”.
It’s a shame overall, as the writeup is good (as they always are), but I know I’m going to have to edit it before I have it to one of my players and make Erastil conservative, but not sexist.
+1.
That's an important concern. You've got to know your players. It can be very easy for some people to use the excuse of role-playing to attack other people's characters at the table*, and Erastil's write up can lead some players to justify themselves that way instead of the traditional "it's what my character would do" excuse for bad behavior.
If this issue comes up for me the next time I go to a con, I'll check back on these boards and tell y'all about it.
*** spoiler omitted **
I don't think this concern is an argument for changing the text. It's just an argument for not playing with childish douche-bags, no?
That is absolutely NOT meant as an attack on you or anyone, merely to say that yeah, you're right, know your group is essential and best not to introduce adult themes (sexism) into childish groups.
NPC: A girl Paladin of Erastil! HAW! HAW! HAW! Get off your pony little girlie, and move out of my road. A real man is walking through.
Paladin: Gets off pony and beats idiot sexist within an inch of his life -- and his friends too.
Other player to friend: *whispered* He called her a girlie. That was funny.
GM to Other Player: Hey douche bag! Pack up your s%!% and leave!
It was impossible. Joan was an exception, and is famous exactly because of that. Exceptions have it easier to reach history annals and achieve iconic status in the popular culture.
In the medieval Europe, women never fought as part of any organized military force. It wasn't "not traditional", it was impossible due to being outside of the culture and law - just like today it would be impossible (or actually plain suicidal) for a woman to walk around in a mini skirt in Saudi Arabia.
The fantasy pseudo-medieval RPGs, for sake of not being hit with "gender inequality" argument, create worlds where adventuring women/homosexuals/minorities enjoy equal rights and behave just like they would in contemporary society. It's an awful disconnect from what was really the case 500 years ago. In Golarion, this disconnect is somewhat mitigated, but still sometimes it makes me cringe. Still, not Paizo's fault, if they made a game where men would chase after dragons and women PCs would be prohibited, we would have a real flamewar here :)
You made a really dumb comparison though.
Don't want Joan of Arc? Ok then.
The Order of the Hatchet. A knightly order of knights made entirely out of women who were knighted after defending Tortosa.
Order of the Glorious Saint Mary. Another knight order of women, this one ordained directly by the pope.
The french had a whole separate word they used to designate female knights.
I can keep going if you want.
And the funny thing is none of that matters. None of it. D&D is not based off of medieval ages morality. Slavery is frowned on. Taking other countries by force isn't found under the good alignment. The good gods all get along, and mass murder of followers of a different religion, unless they're evil aligned, is pretty bad.
Quite frankly the only time bring up "We need to use medieval ages morality" is when they want to take something evil and make it good aligned.
Anyways, that whole conversation is somewhat of a tangent, since Erastil doesn't want people to go out and imprison women and force them into marriage. He just generally prefers it that way. He doesn't send his clerics out to find unmarried women and beat them until they accept it. His clerics just sorta nudge the unmarried women and go "Hey, look at that, Farmer Joe over there is bringing in his crops and - wow, will you look at those pecs? And he's so kind too. I'd bet he'd make a great husband. Don't you agree?"
|
|
Don't want Joan of Arc? Ok then.The Order of the Hatchet. A knightly order of knights made entirely out of women who were knighted after defending Tortosa.
Order of the Glorious Saint Mary. Another knight order of women, this one ordained directly by the pope.
The french had a whole separate word they used to designate female knights.
I can keep going if you want.
And the funny thing is none of that matters. None of it. D&D is not based off of medieval ages morality. Slavery is frowned on. Taking other countries by force isn't found under the good alignment. The good gods all get along, and mass murder of followers of a different religion, unless they're evil aligned, is pretty bad.
Quite frankly the only time bring up "We need to use medieval ages morality" is when they want to take something evil and make it good aligned.
Anyways, that whole conversation is somewhat of a...
The relevance of your examples to the history of medieval Europe is about as big as relevance of British Waffen-SS soldiers to WW2.
Read: Yes, and ?
Also, arguments based on taking the first google search result that reference a single book from 1672 rock my world. :)
Taking the matter to Golarion: slavery is frowned upon - in one country, Andoran. Everybody else pretty much rolls along with that or even makes it a backbone of their society.
Religious intolerance: Rahadoum ? Razmiran ? Taldor vs. Sarenrae ? Cheliax vs. anybody who isn't Asmodeus ?
Taking other countries by force under Good - Andoran and their "export democracy by any means" idea ?
And apart from that, the last part of your post is spot on, right on the target and I agree wholeheartedly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The relevance of your examples to the history of medieval Europe is about as big as relevance of British Waffen-SS soldiers to WW2.
Read: Yes, and ?
It was impossible. Joan was an exception, and is famous exactly because of that
(imagine we had dragons and orcs in medieval Europe, and now try imagining girls in full plate trotting off to face them. Wouldn't happen, wouldn't it ?).
Allow me then to answer your question: Yes. It would happen. It did happen. Not against orcs and dragons, but against actual threats? Yes.
Don't make a statement then pretend it never happened.
Also, arguments based on taking the first google search result that reference a single book from 1672 rock my world. :)
Things you are not doing here: refuting
Taking the matter to Golarion: slavery is frowned upon - in one country, Andoran. Everybody else pretty much rolls along with that or even makes it a backbone of their society.
Oh? Who makes it their backbone? Cheliax - the evil country - Drow, gnolls, etc - evil monsters - or Katapesh, in which the slavers are the evil gnolls? Certainly many other countries don't think much on it, but to act like the whole world just loves them some slavery is intellectually dishonest at best.
Religious intolerance: Rahadoum ? Razmiran ? Taldor vs. Sarenrae ? Cheliax vs. anybody who isn't Asmodeus ?
Let's see. Rahadoum has outlawed all religions so that doesn't fit in. Razmiran is run by an evil cult. Taldor kicking out Sarenrae was for political not religious purposes and was not a religious war. And Asmodeus/Cheliax is again the evil nation.
So basically the only religions that attack the good gods are the evil ones.
So basically it's the act of an evil person.
So basically you agree with me.
Taking other countries by force under Good - Andoran and their "export democracy by any means" idea ?
Except Andoran is doing it because they're a good nation and want to bring about more good. They aren't doing it simply as a power grab which is what 99.99% of Medieval European wars were about.
So to summarize, you agree with me on all points. Awesome!
|
|
The relevance of your examples to the history of medieval Europe is about as big as relevance of British Waffen-SS soldiers to WW2.
Read: Yes, and ?
It was impossible. Joan was an exception, and is famous exactly because of that(imagine we had dragons and orcs in medieval Europe, and now try imagining girls in full plate trotting off to face them. Wouldn't happen, wouldn't it ?).Allow me then to answer your question: Yes. It would happen. It did happen. Not against orcs and dragons, but against actual threats? Yes.
Don't make a statement then pretend it never happened.
Also, arguments based on taking the first google search result that reference a single book from 1672 rock my world. :)Things you are not doing here: refuting
Taking the matter to Golarion: slavery is frowned upon - in one country, Andoran. Everybody else pretty much rolls along with that or even makes it a backbone of their society.Oh? Who makes it their backbone? Cheliax - the evil country - Drow, gnolls, etc - evil monsters - or Katapesh, in which the slavers are the evil gnolls? Certainly many other countries don't think much on it, but to act like the whole world just loves them some slavery is intellectually dishonest at best.
Religious intolerance: Rahadoum ? Razmiran ? Taldor vs. Sarenrae ? Cheliax vs. anybody who isn't Asmodeus ?Let's see. Rahadoum has outlawed all religions so that doesn't fit in. Razmiran is run by an evil cult. Taldor kicking out Sarenrae was for political not religious purposes and was not a religious war. And Asmodeus/Cheliax is again the evil nation.
So basically the only religions that attack the good gods are the evil ones.
So basically it's the act of an evil person.
So basically you agree with me.
Taking other countries by force under Good - Andoran and their "export democracy by any means" idea ?Except Andoran is doing it...
Allow me to do this in points:
1. Female Knights in Medieval Europe: You brought up a single webpage referencing a single volume. That's not a credible scientific proof. That's about as strong as using Wikipedia to back your arguments. Hit the books, then come back.
2. "Certainly many other countries don't think much on it, but to act like the whole world just loves them some slavery is intellectually dishonest at best.". Hit the books again. Most of Inner Sea countries support or tolerate slavery. Andoran is an exception of a country that bans it and fights back. Osirion, Qadira, Cheliax, Taldor - all other major players are pro or tolerant. Heck, there was a major flamewar on this forum about Paizo being bad due to making slavery tolerated.
3. It's funny how you cross of Taldor's politically driven intolerance while Middle Ages were all about politically driven intolerance. Read on about the Catholic-Orthodox split and why it actually happened. Cheliax, devils and Evil aside, is on the same page as Inquistion era Catholicism in many respects (well, maybe slightly more tame out of opportunism). Razmiran and Rahadoum are no different than any "our religion is good, yours is bad" medieval country (and that was, like, all of them), except for the philosphical difference of one being a godless country and the other being a false religion, but that's irrelephant to our story.
4. Andoran - sure, to them that's being Good - but to everybody else that's a power grab veiled as altruism. Erm, weren't the Crusades just like that ?
@Professor and Gorbacz:
Both of you, in the corner, and come back out when you talkin about the topic again ;)
Personally I'm very much in favor of complicating the setting and bring about moral ambiguity. The more the better. To me, saying that sexism is boring for role-playing purposes is a bit sad. I think it suggests a lack of imagination or willingness to partake in moral situations that are actually feasible in real life. Not everything we do at the role-playing table is about escapism.
Okay, if you find it distasteful - keep it out of your group. But don't suggest that it shouldn't be on the table for everybody else.
Suggesting that some boorish players will abuse the text is certainly valid, but it leaves no room for some boorish players that actually learn a bit about the real world through role-playing and learn to ease-off on their stereotyping and chauvinist views. Too unlikely? ...well, this is exactly how psychological treatment for such problems works.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It was impossible. Joan was an exception, and is famous exactly because of that
Throughout the middle ages noble women vigorously, and often successfully, defended their own or their male relatives, lands and castles. Around 890 AD Thyra, Queen of Denmark, ruled in her husband's absence. She led her army against the Germans who invaded Sleswick and Jutland and over a 3 year period built the Danneverke, a great wall which was Denmark's major defense for centuries and portions of which still exist.
In 945 Igor of Russia was killed by the Drevelians during a tax revolt. His wife, Olga, raised an army which attacked Drevelian strongholds forcing them to cease their revolt and pay taxes.
In 1075 Emma, Countess of Norfolk held Norwich Castle against repeated attack and siege. When it became evident that the castle could not be taken the Countess was offered safe conduct for herself, her troops and her possessions to join her husband who had fled to France. She accepted and relinquished the castle.
Urraca, Queen of Aragon became sole ruler of Leon-Castile in 1094 when her husband died. She married Alfonso of Aragon in 1098 and spent the remaining 13 years of her reign at war with him to protect the inheritance rights of her son by her first marriage. Both she and her half-sister Teresa who ruled in Portugal personally led their armies into battle.
In Italy, Alrude, Countess of Bertinoro, led an army to break the siege of Aucona in 1172. She forced the Imperial forces to abandon the siege and engaged in several battles on her return to her castle.
Nicola de la Haye, was the daughter of Baron de la Haye, hereditary castellan of Lincoln. She successfully defended the town against several rebel raids and in 1216 was made sheriff of Lincolnshire.
Jeanne of Navarre (1271-1304) ruler of Navarre, Brie and Champagne and wife of King Philip the Fair of France led her army against that of the Count de Bar when he attempted to rebel against her. Although Philip was entitled by marriage to claim rulership over Jeanne's lands he never did so.
In 1334 Lady Agnes Randolph, wife of Patrick, Earl of Dunbar and March, held the castle of Dunbar against the forces of the Earl of Salisbury for more than 5 months.
During the wars of Brittany in the mid 1300's, several women defended their lands on the battlefield. One of the best known was Jane, Countess of Montfort, who personally led her troops in defeating Charles of Blois at Hennebonne. She later fought a sea battle off the coast of Guernsey. Charles' wife, Jeanne de Penthierre, took to the battlefield to free him after he was taken prisoner by the English. Jeanne de Belleville, whose husband Oliver III of Clisson was beheaded by Charles of Blois, led her troops in sacking several towns loyal to Charles. She later obtained 3 ships from Edward III of England which she used to sink French merchant and military vessels. She kept her two young children with her on her military campaigns until she eventually retired and remarried.
Phillippa of Hainault, queen of Edward III of England, was named regent while he fought the French. In 1346 she led an army of 12,000 soldiers against the invading Scots and captured David Bruce, their king.
Margaret of Denmark (1353-1411) became ruler of Denmark and nominal Queen of Norway on the death of her son Olaf II in 1387. Denmark, Norway and Sweden were at war and Margaret led her armies against key cities and fortresses, eventually forcing the Swedes and Norwegians to withdraw from Denmark. She was elected Queen of Norway in 1388. The following year she was offered the Swedish throne after she defeated the Swedish king and took him prisoner. She persuaded the Diets of the three countries to accept her grand-nephew, Eric of Pomerania, as heir to their thrones. In 1397 she forged the Calmar Union, uniting the three nations under a single monarchy and becoming the most powerful ruler in Scandinavian history.
Jacqueline of Bavaria, Countess of Holland, Hainault and Zealand (1402-1437) became ruler of her lands when her father died on May 13, 1417. Her most powerful vassal, the lord of Arkell, rebelled against the rule of a 15 year old woman and led a revolt to overthrow her, laying siege to the fortified city of Gorkum. Jacqueline led an army of 300 ships and 6,000 knights to relieve Gorkum. She personally led her reserve troops in a charge against the castle gate and defeated Arkell's forces.
In 1429 Isabella of Lorraine led an army to free her husband Rene, Duke of Anjou, who had been imprisoned by the Duke of Burgundy. She later took to the field to fight for Rene's recognition as King of Sicily. Her daughter Margaret of Anjou (1430-1482) married Henry VI of England and defended the Lancastrians during the War of the Roses. Leading her armies she defeated both the Duke of York and the Earl of Warwick. In 1471 she landed at Weymouth expecting to join her forces with those of Jasper Tudor, but his army was delayed and Margaret's greatly outnumbered forces were defeated at Tewkesbury. She fled the battlefield on foot carrying her infant son and eventually escaped with him to Flanders. She raised a new army and returned to England where she fought for a number of years before being captured by the Yorkists, who allowed Louis XI of France to ransom her after obtaining her oath that she would cease fighting.
Isabella I of Castile (1451-1504), wife of Ferdinand of Aragon and queen regent of Spain, who sponsored Columbus' voyage and brought the Inquisition to her country, led her armies into battle early in her reign to protect her succession. Later during the conquest of the Moors, she sometimes rode into battle or mounted sieges with and without Ferdinand, but she was better known as a genius at military tactics and supplying armies in the field.
Aethelflaed, oldest daughter of Alfred the Great, was considered the chief tactician of her time. She united Mercia, conquered Wales and subdued the Danes becoming the de facto ruler of the Mercians and Danes. She was killed in battle in June 918 AD at Tammorth in Staffordshire.
In 1100 Maude de Valerie, a Welsh revolutionary, raised an army to rebel against the oppressive regime of King John. She was captured on the battlefield and died as his prisoner.
In the 15th century Maire o Ciaragain led Irish clans against the English and was known for her ferocity in battle.
How many more examples do you want?...
I think the problem with the examples is that they primarily list queens and other upper echolons. They have a different starting position. The point the original argument was trying to make is that the common farmer's daughter typically had a negligible chance of becoming a hero.
Though, I would wager there are a fairly large number of unsung "common" female heroines in the dark ages. And, frankly, I don't think that men riding off to wage war (and generously rape and pillage) is particularly heroic.
No the thrust of Gorbacz' argument as I see it was that it was impossible for any woman to become famed for martial prowess or even to be allowed to lead an army.
Oh. In that case he's obviously mistaken.
I think the problem with the examples is that they primarily list queens and other upper echolons. They have a different starting position. The point the original argument was trying to make is that the common farmer's daughter typically had a negligible chance of becoming a hero.
Though, I would wager there are a fairly large number of unsung "common" female heroines in the dark ages. And, frankly, I don't think that men riding off to wage war (and generously rape and pillage) is particularly heroic.
This is true of men too. You don't hear about William, son of John the Miller, who heroically milled the grain ^_-. If you weren't born a noble, at least a knight, heroism pretty much wasn't in the cards...
is understandably offended by finding such nonsense in a game supplement.
Nonsense is to think a fantasy world is some kind of Utopia. Is this player also offended by the fact that Kingmaker is about Kings or Queens rather than elected Presidents?
|
|
No the thrust of Gorbacz' argument as I see it was that it was impossible for any woman to become famed for martial prowess or even to be allowed to lead an army.
"Leadership and rulership" =/= "martial prowress". I wasn't talking about queens, generals and commanders. I was talking about women with swords, in armour, hacking apart the opposition on the battlefield.
|
Although certainly a special situation, there are sources that indicate, there were women warriors among the crusaders,as well as indications that, among many medieval cultures, women were sometimes warriors, too
Nonsense is to think a fantasy world is some kind of Utopia.
I agree with you. That wasn't what I'd been advocating.
Is this player also offended by the fact that Kingmaker is about Kings or Queens rather than elected Presidents?
Actually, the players are free to set up whatever sort of government they like; not just a traditional monarchy. It'd be interesting if they tried forming a republic, drafted a constitution and held elections.
|
Actually, the players are free to set up whatever sort of government they like; not just a traditional monarchy. It'd be interesting if they tried forming a republic, drafted a constitution and held elections.
A group of Irori-worshippers coming up with some sort of meritocracy with Confucian-esque civil service exams leading to an educated bureaucratic class, expected to be skilled in administrative and martial and philosophical principles could be funky.
|
|
I know I showed up late at this party, but here are my thoughts on the matter (since you asked...)
In the 3.5 D&D book I liked Ehlonna a lot because she was one of the few female deities that wasn't a halfling or totally Goth, and I liked her "earth mother" vibe. So when I got the Pathfinder Campaign Setting, I was hoping to see a nature goddess like that....
I think the best fit for Ehlonna in Goarion is probably Desna.
I think the best fit for Ehlonna in Goarion is probably Desna.I know I showed up late at this party, but here are my thoughts on the matter (since you asked...)
In the 3.5 D&D book I liked Ehlonna a lot because she was one of the few female deities that wasn't a halfling or totally Goth, and I liked her "earth mother" vibe. So when I got the Pathfinder Campaign Setting, I was hoping to see a nature goddess like that....
There is also the female aspect of Gozreh.
|
|
One factor that I’ve not seen brought up often enough is the fact that sexism is more covertly embedded and societally ‘acceptable’ than many other prejudices, so for me it has an additional status that does need to be recognised. I note that the Erastil article has a lot of gender-based ‘traditional values’ stuff – but not one word regarding homosexuals. One would assume that Erastil (as portrayed in the article) would be vehemently opposed to non-progeny producing relationships, yet there’s just no mention of this prejudice at all. I would lay even money that far fewer posters would feel comfortable ‘defending’ a write-up of an overtly ethnically racist or anti-homosexual LG god.+1 Thanks for expressing that thought; much more eloquently than I could have.
I would happily defend the existence of one 'stuffy and traditional' god who had other biases beyond sexism.
I'm finding an implication in some of the stuff here that William Wilberforce and Gandhi were 'evil'. They were both, by modern standards, sexist, racist and homophobic.
All of which seems based upon the sweet notion that modern progressive liberals n(such as myself) have finally figured out precisely what it takes to be good.
Pah! linky