Gnolls tend to be patriarchal as well (oddly enough)That bit there's kind of an error we're working on fixing. Gnolls should be matriarchal.
Personal question - how difficult have you found it to be in attempting to design Golarion with gender equality in mind? Is it hard not to include unintended mores from your culture in real life (not making any assumptions on what culture that is)? What does the term 'gender equality' mean for you in terms of setting design?
[notebook poised]
I am actually quite curious - how many people would consider it a dealbreaker if there were (relatively minor) stat adjustments for males and females of all or most races? I think one of the early D&D editions had those... probably AD&D (the 1E version).
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's be real here. I agree that gender equality is a move to appeal to the roleplaying player-base, but the real motivation here isn't to bridge some moot point about how female players might respond to sexism in game (if anything light-fantasy sexism caters to heroic women stereotypes); the primary motivation to make this move is female characters for male players.
No, it's not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am actually quite curious - how many people would consider it a dealbreaker if there were (relatively minor) stat adjustments for males and females of all or most races? I think one of the early D&D editions had those... probably AD&D (the 1E version).
I would find it both really annoying and very unnecessary unless such races displayed extreme sexual dimorphism. Yes, we can talk about how in real life men tend to have better upper body strength or whatever, but that doesn't have to be represented with a strength bonus. The way you shake out your point buy describes where your character falls on those curves. Sure, maybe your 'average' female human has an 11 or 12 Con as opposed to a male 9 or 10, but if you buy it down to 7 you're saying that your female character is exceptionally sickly. No need to complicate that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi all. I've noticed that many published material and players play the game based on "genders are largely equal". I'm curious if...
1) most play it this way
I do.
2) does this seem possible
Works fine for me.
3) if changed what do u do different
I wouldn't.
This suspends disbelief for me to some extent
But the demons, flying wizards, existing gods, talking hyena people, the literal existence of good and evil, magical swords, necromancy, etc doesn't?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Editted to add: This seems to fall into the same category/questioning cycle we saw with homosexuality on Golarion or the other threads wondering why the default world doesn't follow lockstep with Earth. Because it isn't Earth.I have to ask - and this is just playing devil's advocate a little - if there were absolutely no homosexual people on Golarion, and when asked why, the answer offered was 'because this isn't Earth', would you find that to be an acceptable or even believable answer?
"This isn't Earth" is such a broad, catch-all term, that I feel it's very disingenuous to keep bringing it into threads like this.
And I say that about both sides of the argument.
Creative Director
|
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gnolls tend to be patriarchal as well (oddly enough)That bit there's kind of an error we're working on fixing. Gnolls should be matriarchal.Personal question - how difficult have you found it to be in attempting to design Golarion with gender equality in mind? Is it hard not to include unintended mores from your culture in real life (not making any assumptions on what culture that is)? What does the term 'gender equality' mean for you in terms of setting design?
[notebook poised]
When I'm designing for Golarion, not all that difficult at all.
When I'm developing work from some authors, quite difficult, since some authors don't realize their male privilege is showing quite so blatantly when they write.
What "gender equality" means to me is kinda complex, but you can look at the gender mix in our deities or our iconics to get a sense of the tip of that iceberg. In terms of setting design, it basically means that it's important to look at every NPC and decide if that NPC needs to be a man or a woman or whatever, and to try to keep an equal spread of genders represented across all NPC types, be they villains or heroes, victims or persecutors, monsters or humans, etc. And as good as you think you can do, and as unbaised as you hope you are... you can always do better—and it helps to have folks other than yourself read and edit the work you do to bring new perspectives to things.
That said, there are cases where there is NOT gender equality, particularly in certain societies (drow, gnoll, orc), religions (Kostchtchie), races (harpy, hag, satyr, xill), and the like. In those cases, the gender dominance tends to be a key part of things and a defining element of that society, religion, or race. Writing about gender inequality is not the same as promoting or supporting gender inequality, any more than writing about depravity is supporting depravity. To paraphrase Ebert in his 4 star review of George Romero's "Dawn of the Dead," "A movie can be about depravity without being depraved."
Personally, though, I tend to err on the side of more female NPCs in my writing than male NPCs, particularly when it comes to positions of power or prominence in a story line. Thus, for Burnt Offerings as an example, the mayor of the town is a woman, the primary villain of the adventure is a woman, the most significant PC ally is a woman, etc. Pretty much because I try NOT to fall into the trap of only writing from the viewpoint of a man writing in a society with a lot of male-dominated issues and influences. I like to think of myself as a feminist, I guess, but I kinda get nervous claiming that because I'm a man. It's complicated, in other words, and I hope that does at least a little good in there somewhere to answer your question.
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am actually quite curious - how many people would consider it a dealbreaker if there were (relatively minor) stat adjustments for males and females of all or most races? I think one of the early D&D editions had those... probably AD&D (the 1E version).
It'd be a dealbreaker to me.
Early editions of D&D didn't have stat adjustments for geneder, but they had something that's arguably worse—stat maximums based on gender, or more precise, stat maximums if your character wasn't a guy. A woman could never be as strong as a man in AD&D.
Probably the most important way the game has matured/evolved over the years is that it dropped that silly bit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanically there is no difference between men and women in pathfinder. Socially, women are in highly placed positions of power in many countries in Golarion currently and historically.
You play a human, it does not matter what sex you are.
You play a dwarf, it does not matter what sex you are, etc.
Seems pretty gender equal to me, with perhaps just enough difference in some cultures to create conflict, which is necessary for a game setting to provide challenges for heroes. For instance in Drow society.
I personally don't want my settings to be utopias. There is nothing for a hero to do in Utopia. But there are plenty of conflicts that can be built into a setting without resorting to gender based differences.
Let's be real here. I agree that gender equality is a move to appeal to the roleplaying player-base, but the real motivation here isn't to bridge some moot point about how female players might respond to sexism in game (if anything light-fantasy sexism caters to heroic women stereotypes); the primary motivation to make this move is female characters for male players.No, it's not.
I wrote a whole paragraph full of reasons why the first quote is stupid and it didn't equal your three word statement. That was awesome. Thank you.
Earth could learn a lot from some of the things we do in Golarion though.
You'll never understand how happy the things you folks do with Golarion makes me.
Actually, is there a book that discusses gender roles and culture in general in deeper detail for the "average" Varisian, Andoran, Belkzen orc etc and how those vary with what their home is (big city, village, citadel or vagrant), dominant cults etc? I generally play my games by ear and try to avoid possibly offensive topics such as what the typical gender roles, stereotypes et cetera are, but I wouldn´t mind knowing just how common it is to be, say, a female sergeant in Ustalav and whether certain professions tend to be predominantly male or female held. "Notably more equal than medieval Earth" is a fairly wide concept, sadly :/ .
|
Creative Director
|
Actually, is there a book that discusses gender roles and culture in general in deeper detail for the "average" Varisian, Andoran, Belkzen orc etc and how those vary with what their home is (big city, village, citadel or vagrant), dominant cults etc? I generally play my games by ear and try to avoid possibly offensive topics such as what the typical gender roles, stereotypes et cetera are, but I wouldn´t mind knowing just how common it is to be, say, a female sergeant in Ustalav and whether certain professions tend to be predominantly male or female held. "Notably more equal than medieval Earth" is a fairly wide concept, sadly :/ .
Gender roles are mentioned now and then when appropriate, but there's not a book that focuses exclusively to that. As a general rule, though, you're safe assuming a 50/50 split between genders throughout the Inner Sea. A simple coin flip or roll of the percentile dice can make the decision for a new NPC if you prefer.
I am actually quite curious - how many people would consider it a dealbreaker if there were (relatively minor) stat adjustments for males and females of all or most races? I think one of the early D&D editions had those... probably AD&D (the 1E version).It'd be a dealbreaker to me.
Early editions of D&D didn't have stat adjustments for geneder, but they had something that's arguably worse—stat maximums based on gender, or more precise, stat maximums if your character wasn't a guy. A woman could never be as strong as a man in AD&D.
Probably the most important way the game has matured/evolved over the years is that it dropped that silly bit.
I don't think it was that 'a woman could never be as strong as a man', I think it was that 'the strongest woman wouldn't be as strong as the strongest man', which is just a reflection of the real world. An unnecessary inclusion, perhaps, but not a biased one. The average man is stronger physically than the average woman, and the strongest man is stronger than the strongest woman, but nothing in our world nor in those early rules ever suggested that no women could ever be as strong as a man.
The debate would seem to be over how much realism do we want to include and which pieces get edited/censored/written over vs. which do not. Personally, I'm a 'less rules the better' kind of guy, so I'm fine with not having attributes reflect gender norms, and if I'm going to take up a gaming cause based on reality, its a lot more likely to be something involving gunslingers than sexual politics.
Actually, is there a book that discusses gender roles and culture in general in deeper detail for the "average" Varisian, Andoran, Belkzen orc etc and how those vary with what their home is (big city, village, citadel or vagrant), dominant cults etc? I generally play my games by ear and try to avoid possibly offensive topics such as what the typical gender roles, stereotypes et cetera are, but I wouldn´t mind knowing just how common it is to be, say, a female sergeant in Ustalav and whether certain professions tend to be predominantly male or female held. "Notably more equal than medieval Earth" is a fairly wide concept, sadly :/ .
I play it by ear, too, but I do err on the side of female NPCs over male, because in my "Not Earth" settings, be it Golarion or my homebrew, I kinda go off of the Earth statistics of women outnumbering men slightly.
What's sad is that an author will get called out if they have too many female characters in their novel, adventure, or movie, and told their work is too "feminist", but rarely will it be said that they have too many male characters.
I used to be self conscious of having too many main female characters in my stories after someone pointed it out to me. Now I just shrug it off and point at action movies with lone female window dressing characters.
@theshaman: I don't consider it a deal breaker to play with stats for the sexes. After all pathfinder and other D20 systems offer bonuses and negatives based on age. I wouldn't say that penalties or pluses should be enforced but a set of recommended and optional rules would b nice.
AGEISM!!!
:-P
Actually, is there a book that discusses gender roles and culture in general in deeper detail for the "average" Varisian, Andoran, Belkzen orc etc and how those vary with what their home is (big city, village, citadel or vagrant), dominant cults etc? I generally play my games by ear and try to avoid possibly offensive topics such as what the typical gender roles, stereotypes et cetera are, but I wouldn´t mind knowing just how common it is to be, say, a female sergeant in Ustalav and whether certain professions tend to be predominantly male or female held. "Notably more equal than medieval Earth" is a fairly wide concept, sadly :/ .I play it by ear, too, but I do err on the side of female NPCs over male, because in my "Not Earth" settings, be it Golarion or my homebrew, I kinda go off of the Earth statistics of women outnumbering men slightly.
What's sad is that an author will get called out if they have too many female characters in their novel, adventure, or movie, and told their work is too "feminist", but rarely will it be said that they have too many male characters.
I used to be self conscious of having too many main female characters in my stories after someone pointed it out to me. Now I just shrug it off and point at action movies with lone female
window dressingcharacters.There are studies suggesting that groups of around 30% women or where women do around 30% of the talking are perceived as dominated by women. At least in some contexts. Something similar may apply.
That's because some men panic that their dominance is slipping :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a broad, catch-all term, but it mostly gets brought out to respond to broad catch-all "But in the real world" arguments. You kind of have to respond with "this isn't real history" or agree that everything in your setting should be just like Earth.Editted to add: This seems to fall into the same category/questioning cycle we saw with homosexuality on Golarion or the other threads wondering why the default world doesn't follow lockstep with Earth. Because it isn't Earth.I have to ask - and this is just playing devil's advocate a little - if there were absolutely no homosexual people on Golarion, and when asked why, the answer offered was 'because this isn't Earth', would you find that to be an acceptable or even believable answer?"This isn't Earth" is such a broad, catch-all term, that I feel it's very disingenuous to keep bringing it into threads like this.
And I say that about both sides of the argument.
Pretty much. And it was more polite than a number of other responses I had originally worked on, most of which revolved around "why are you trying to replicate what people deal with everyday?" It isn't Earth; it is someplace new and different, where you don't have to deal with the same restrictions and beginning points that you would if you set the game on Modern (or past) Earth.
But there are a lot of ways to look at the reasons for not applying a gender difference in the game.
From a standpoint of wanting their game to appeal to as many customers as possible, though, making male and female characters start on an equal basis is a benefit. A lady gamer reading through game systems is probably going to feel more inclined to play a game that doesn't penalize her for playing a character the same gender as her. That's a big part of the market. I don't think that applying a penalty to female characters will make the game more appealing to most men, except maybe a small group of misogynists.
Let's be real here. I agree that gender equality is a move to appeal to the roleplaying player-base, but the real motivation here isn't to bridge some moot point about how female players might respond to sexism in game (if anything light-fantasy sexism caters to heroic women stereotypes); the primary motivation to make this move is female characters for male players.
Some guys have fetishes for herculean or otherwise powerful women; others just have a fascination with the notion of playing a woman (to the point where they will only play as female characters). It's an interesting social phenomena, and it is the overwhelming reason a form of gender equality (not exactly full equality, but close enough for our purpose) exist in high-fantasy settings. The genre itself is designed as a form of instant gratification where most forms of logic are thrown out the window--which is the cause for an innumerable number of debates, including this thread.
While a lot of men do like playing female characters (and vice-versa) and the lack of a penalty for playing one encourages this, the point of how women respond to sexism is not at all moot. It's a very real factor, and women gamers are a huge and growing market, and it would be very foolish to alienate them for no good reason at all, and no attempted justification other than a supposed commitment to realism.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am actually quite curious - how many people would consider it a dealbreaker if there were (relatively minor) stat adjustments for males and females of all or most races? I think one of the early D&D editions had those... probably AD&D (the 1E version).
I'd probably consider it a deal-breaker.
Not because of any strident political correctness, but because I've played games that try to be ultra-realistic, and they're generally Not Fun. If the designers felt it necessary to be that realistic in all matters, then I'm going to need a Ph.D. in sociology, biology, physics, and thaumatology to play it properly.
This, of course, assumes that they are in fact the kind of anal-retentive weenies that care that deeply about the physics of actual combat. But if they're just doing it because they're misogynistic Richards, that doesn't make me substantially happier about the game, either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have any problem ignoring or hand-waving such realities in my games either, any more than I do any other physics-defying ephemera, but it bothers me when people get upset at having the subject even broached, or the insinuation that someone who does so has any more of an agenda than someone who doesn't like the idea of muskets being loaded and fired four times in six seconds.
That's comparing apples to goats -- gender equality is a huge social issue with tremendous implications reaching into every aspect of life. Any stance you take on it, even just a 'status quo' one, is a political stance. Reloading rates of muskets isn't anywhere in the same solar system, much less in the same ballpark.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have any problem ignoring or hand-waving such realities in my games either, any more than I do any other physics-defying ephemera, but it bothers me when people get upset at having the subject even broached, or the insinuation that someone who does so has any more of an agenda than someone who doesn't like the idea of muskets being loaded and fired four times in six seconds.That's comparing apples to goats -- gender equality is a huge social issue with tremendous implications reaching into every aspect of life. Any stance you take on it, even just a 'status quo' one, is a political stance. Reloading rates of muskets isn't anywhere in the same solar system, much less in the same ballpark.
Actually, I think it's quite a valid comparison, and quite illustrative.
In both cases, the person complaining is doing so because the world-as-portrayed doesn't match the world-as-the-person-perceives-it and it's seriously messing with their ability to suspend disbelieve.
The difference is that no one really cares if I perceive muskets to be an ineffective weapon with a long load time. For two reasons. First, no one care about muskets, and second, I'm right in my perceptions.
On the other hand, if someone really perceives that women can't be equal to men, to the point that they couldn't be part of a gender-balanced ship's crew, that's a serious problem that a lot of people will be annoyed by. And, furthermore, that person is a sexist pig, and I see no problem with challenging that person on their misogynistic, prejudiced, and ill-informed beliefs.
While a lot of men do like playing female characters (and vice-versa) and the lack of a penalty for playing one encourages this, the point of how women respond to sexism is not at all moot. It's a very real factor, and women gamers are a huge and growing market, and it would be very foolish to alienate them for no good reason at all, and no attempted justification other than a supposed commitment to realism.
I remember playing under those rules in the Old Days. We had two female players in our group who were not at all amused with the modifiers and argued that it didn't really do anything to balance the game, and counter-argued about Constitution modifiers and the like. It was well out of my interest at 12-15 back then but it resulted in our GM removing the caps on abilities as well as Racial Limits as well, after he decided it didn't do anything for the game.
30 years later and I still agree with him -- those limits didn't make the game more fun or interesting and just upset people.
Gnolls tend to be patriarchal as well (oddly enough)That bit there's kind of an error we're working on fixing. Gnolls should be matriarchal.
So should people running Legacy of Fire just go ahead and swap in the Carrion Queen?
|
If one got REALLY detailed, even the simplest stat of a persons height in real physics matters greatly. The average male finds it harder to do acrobatics than a woman would because the usually taller man has a higher center of gravity than the woman. Both can do it with training but physics is physics. There are reasons why u c a LOT more female cheerleaders than male. And if u say it wasn't physics but some societal reason, the uve more or less made the point of many of the posters. And if someone says ladies look better than men, which I agree, then again they were not equal.That's actually largely not height, but weight distribution within the body. Even for men and women of equal height, the woman's center of gravity will be lower. Men carry more weight in their chest/upper body and women carry it more on the hips.
Obviously this won't apply in all cases, the extremes will overlap, but it's a very strong trend..
It does my heart glad to c someone who knows physics :) yes ur correct. I was referring to how height affects the distribution of said weight ; an how on average the man is taller. It is a lesser and more correlative factor when compared to weight distribution though.
Edit: height is yet another example of something that had no meaning. U record it on the character sheet but it has no plus or minus. Only the varying size categories have meaning.
Weight does though. if a woman significantly smaller than a man has equal strength she has the advantage. Her mount can carry more, if she falls in battle the allies can get her out easier. I cannot for the life of me understand how so many of these comments are allowed to stand but me mentioning earlier how equal strength should mean equal size is "off topic"
|
Creative Director
|
So should people running Legacy of Fire just go ahead and swap in the Carrion Queen?Gnolls tend to be patriarchal as well (oddly enough)That bit there's kind of an error we're working on fixing. Gnolls should be matriarchal.
Nope.
The gnolls in that adventure path are already presented as unusual, in that they worship Rovagug and not Lamashtu.
Games I run tend to have gender equality for the common PC races and acceptable PC background cultures.
Why? because of the following -
A - 2 out of 5 of my player base is female.
B - It's fantasy, everyone deserves an equal shake at escaping their reality.
Seriously, in real life many of my players may have adventurous hobbies, yet none would regularly take on the mob, or wader the wilderness in a treasure hunt (okay, so one is an archeologist).
Even if you believe the general "men tend to have more upper body strength than women on average", and believed it should have some game mechanic, it would only apply to the average people - the NPC commoners, not exceptional adventurers. That's a lot of work to put in for NPCs just for the sake of a personal soapbox.
I don't have any problem ignoring or hand-waving such realities in my games either, any more than I do any other physics-defying ephemera, but it bothers me when people get upset at having the subject even broached, or the insinuation that someone who does so has any more of an agenda than someone who doesn't like the idea of muskets being loaded and fired four times in six seconds.That's comparing apples to goats -- gender equality is a huge social issue with tremendous implications reaching into every aspect of life. Any stance you take on it, even just a 'status quo' one, is a political stance. Reloading rates of muskets isn't anywhere in the same solar system, much less in the same ballpark.Actually, I think it's quite a valid comparison, and quite illustrative.
In both cases, the person complaining is doing so because the world-as-portrayed doesn't match the world-as-the-person-perceives-it and it's seriously messing with their ability to suspend disbelieve.
The difference is that no one really cares if I perceive muskets to be an ineffective weapon with a long load time. For two reasons. First, no one care about muskets, and second, I'm right in my perceptions.
On the other hand, if someone really perceives that women can't be equal to men, to the point that they couldn't be part of a gender-balanced ship's crew, that's a serious problem that a lot of people will be annoyed by. And, furthermore, that person is a sexist pig, and I see no problem with challenging that person on their misogynistic, prejudiced, and ill-informed beliefs.
THIS
| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wrote a whole paragraph full of reasons why the first quote is stupid and it didn't equal your three word statement. That was awesome. Thank you.Let's be real here. I agree that gender equality is a move to appeal to the roleplaying player-base, but the real motivation here isn't to bridge some moot point about how female players might respond to sexism in game (if anything light-fantasy sexism caters to heroic women stereotypes); the primary motivation to make this move is female characters for male players.No, it's not.
Thanks!
Honestly, what this whole thing boils down to is two things.
1) Who cares about Earth norms? This is a game world, and it's meant to be the most fun for the largest number of people. That means reaching beyond straight white male gamers (the majority of whom, it should be noted, aren't invested in the idea of penalizing female/LGBT/PoC characters) to broader audiences.
More importantly, those sort of "norms," if universally enforced over an entire game world, limit the sort of characters we can create and stories we can tell. I'm a woman. And yet, the internet and male-dominated professions notwithstanding, the vast majority of the stories in my life aren't about being limited by or overcoming sexism. However, there'd be a lot more room for interesting stories in my life if I didn't have to deal with sexist crap.
Stories about overcoming prejudice can be compelling, inspiring, exciting, etc. But if they're the only sort of stories you can tell about half the population, you're impoverishing your story spectrum something fierce. So, Golarion has pockets of prejudice (of varying kinds), so that those sorts of stories have seeds, but those prejudices generally aren't universal, so that there are a ton of other options for telling stories about women, and gay characters, and trans characters, and people of color (and tieflings, and summoners, and followers of Calistria, and everyone else).
2) Earth history isn't necessarily what you think it is, because what most people think it is is filtered pretty heavily through the mores and assumptions of the Victorians, and their ideas about what was normal and natural for men and women. So (increasingly less so, but even now) the people who try and figure out what history is supposed to say are basing it on very modern assumptions.
For example:
Archaeologists dig up some Viking graves. They find a lot of skeletons buried with swords, and a few skeletons buried with weaving implements.
So, they write into history the idea that bands of Viking men roamed Western Europe, raping and pillaging and conquering, while Viking women stayed back in the homeland and made clothes and household implements and birthed more male Viking warriors.
Now that we have more sophisticated means of determining whether human remains are male or female than just guessing based on the things that are buried with them, they've found out that half those skeletons are female, which means most of the women were buried with swords.
(And even now, assumptions about what that means show a certain... slant. Oh! Half of those graves hold women, buried with swords. That must mean that, rather than being warlike invaders, the Vikings were "marriage-minded colonists." Which is certainly possible, but given the frequent cultural interchanges between the Vikings and the Celts, and the historical evidence that female fighters were fairly common among the Celts, isn't it just as plausible that there were female Viking raiders? Or that being buried with a sword is simply a symbol of some sort of societal position or rank? Or a sign of some sort of beliefs about the afterlife that maybe had nothing to do with gender? Or one of hundreds of other ideas that don't assume that "no women with the group = warlike, women with the group = peaceful"?)
You think the idea of female warriors and commanders in Golarion is unrealistic Because History?
Phbbt.
3500 BCE(ish) - Queen Vishpla loses her leg in battle, is fitted with an iron prosthesis, and returns to battle, as described in the Rig Veda.
1300 BCE - Female warriors carrying axes and swords are painted onto the walls of Hittite fortresses.
740-720 BCE - Zabibi commands an army containing large numbers of women, and rules as a warrior queen. Her successor Samsi does the same.
500-400 BCE - Female skeletons of Scythian women are buried with swords and bows.
102 BCE - Plutarch describes Roman soldiers fighting contingents of female Celtic fighters.
39-43 CE - Meanwhile, in Vietnam: Trung Trac and Trung Nhi, whose mother Tran Thi Doan trained them to fight and led her own troops to support them, lead an uprising against the Chinese and took over 60+ fortresses. Phung Thi Chinh also fights in those battles, and delivers a child on the battlefield.
49 CE - Agrippina presides over the exercises of the Roman legions. The captured Celtic king Caratacus and his tribesmen, when brought before the emperor, assume Agrippina is his partner in martial leadership and bow to her.
61 CE - Bouddicca.
63 CE - Tacitus complains in his Annals that Nero's gladiatorial shows, while pleasingly lavish, are marred by senators and women of rank "disgracing" themselves in the arena. Female gladiators are also mentioned by Petronius, Statius, Suetonius, Martial, Cassius Dio, and other Roman authors. Septimius Severus prohibits female combatants in the arena in 200 CE.
250-275 CE - Zenobia, governor of Syria, leads her armies against those of Claudius and Aurelian.
366 CE - Empress Jingo Kogo of Japan invades Korea. She's pregnant at the time and has to have adjustable armor made.
373-380 CE - Queen Mavia leads her Saracen army against Rome in Palestine, Phoenicia, and Egypt.
550ish CE - An English princess, known as the "Island Girl," takes an army and invades Jutland, capturing King Radigis, her betrothed, who'd jilted her.
600 CE - Kahula and Wafeira, two Arabian army commanders, join forces to defeat the Greeks.
647 CE - The (unnamed) daughter of a Roman prefect named Gregory fights in the front ranks at Tripoli. She is trained in horsemanship, archery, and the use of the scimitar.
656 CE - Aisha bint Abu Bakr, wife of Mohammed, fights in the Battle of the Camel. Salaym Bint Malham fights in the army with weapons she keeps strapped around her pregnant belly.
645 CE - Daya al-Kahina, a Berber queen, leads her people in battle against the invading Arabs.
890 CE - Queen Thyra of Denmark leads her armies against the invading Germans, and builds the Danneverke wall to defend her country. There are also numerous Viking graves from around this time containing the bodies of warrior women, and female fighters are frequently mentioned in sagas.
900ish CE - Aethelflaed, Lady of Mercia, leads her troops against the Vikings and builds fortifications to support the reign of her brother Edward the Elder.
900ish CE - Hethna, Visna, and Vebiorg lead Danish companies during the battle of Bravellir.
945 CE - Olga of Russia, raises an army and ends the revolt which killed her husband Igor.
1061 - Matilda, Countess of Tuscany, first goes into battle at her mother's side. She begins commanding her own armies at 1069.
1070s-1080s (?) - Duchess Gaita of Lombardy marries a Norman mercenary and rides into battle with her husband, wearing full armor.
1098 - Urraca of Aragon leads her own armies into battle to protect her son's inheritance rights. Her half-sister, Teresa, also leads her own troops.
Late 11th century - Isabel of Conches rides, armed as a knight, into battle over land in Northern France.
1172 - Countess Alrude of Bertinoro and her army break a siege at Aucona. When she returns to her own castle, she takes part in several more battles.
1173 - Countess Petronilla of Leicester arms herself in a hauberk and fights in her husband's rebellion against Henry II.
~1100s - Queens Eleanor of Aquitaine, Eleanor of Castile, Marguerite de Provence, Florine of Denmark, and Berengaria of Navarre all go on Crusade. A troop of female fighters accompanies Emperor Conrad to Syria, and female Crusaders fight in the army of William, Count of Poitiers.
Late 1100s - Tomoe Gozen fights alongside her husband, a Minamoto general, in the Gempei War. Yae fights alongside her lover Takeda Shingen and commands a squad of female cavalry.
1200 CE - Saxo Grammaticus writes about Danish women who dress in men's clothing and spend all their time learning "soldiers' skills."
1216 - Nicola de la Haye becomes sheriff of Lincolnshire and defends the town against rebel barons and the King of France's son.
1261 - The Order of the Glorious Saint Mary is approved by Pope Alexander after about 30 years of existence. It grants the rank of "militissa" to women. (Sixtus V suppresses it in 1558 because women fighters oh no.)
1300-1374 - Jane, Countess of Montfort, rides armored into battle to defend her besieged city. She mobilizes the townswomen to defend the ramparts of her castle with missiles. She breaks out of the castle at the head of a troop of 300 horsemen and fights her way to freedom, later returning with another 600 men to reinforce the town. Later that year, she fights in a naval battle, wielding a sword at the helm of her ship.
Early 14th century - Isabelle of England takes up arms against her husband Edward II. Edward II forces her to flee to Scotland, where she fights in the ensuing war with a troop of women that includes the sisters of Nigel and Robert Bruce.
Late 14th century - Agnes Hotot's father agrees to a lance duel to settle a disagreement. On the day of the encounter, he falls ill, so Agnes puts on a helmet, mounts her father's horse, and beats his foe in the tourney. While he lies on the ground, Agnes lets down her hair and bares her breasts so he will know he has been beaten by a woman.
1383 - Pope Boniface VIII writes several letters mentioning female Genoese crusaders.
1518 - A group of 350 girls constructs and defends fortifications for the Protestant Garrison in Guienne, France.
1521 - Hernan Cortes' army includes Spanish and Mayan women.
1524 - Ameliane du Puget leads a troop of women who break a siege at Marseilles.
1568 - Amaron and Kenau Hasselaar lead a battalion of 300 women to defend the Dutch city of Haarlem against the Spanish.
1584 - Tomoe Gozen, described as an excellent swordswoman, captures Kyoto after winning the Battle of Kurikawa.
And on and on. That's just a sample. Women have always fought. And they have always led, as well. Not as often as men, but often enough that female fighters and military leaders are hardly remarkable. And in a world that doesn't have the same confluence of misogynistic religious and political influences, not having a robust assortment of female warriors and military leaders would be remarkable.
(Also, this just because she's awesome: http://fashionablygeek.com/videos-2/this-armored-lady-won-the-longsword-com petition-at-a-world-invitational-tournament/)
When I'm designing for Golarion, not all that difficult at all.
When I'm developing work from some authors, quite difficult, since some authors don't realize their male privilege is showing quite so blatantly when they write.
What "gender equality" means to me is kinda complex, but you can look at the gender mix in our deities or our iconics to get a sense of the tip of that iceberg. In terms of setting design, it basically means that it's important to look at every NPC and decide if that NPC needs to be a man or a woman or whatever, and to try to keep an equal spread of genders represented across all NPC types, be they villains or heroes, victims or persecutors, monsters or humans, etc. And as good as you think you can do, and as unbaised as you hope you are... you can always do better—and it helps to have folks other than yourself read and edit the work you do to bring new perspectives to things.
That said, there are cases where there is NOT gender equality, particularly in certain societies (drow, gnoll, orc), religions (Kostchtchie), races (harpy, hag, satyr, xill), and the like. In those cases, the gender dominance tends to be a key part of things and a defining element of that society, religion, or race. Writing about gender inequality is not the same as promoting or supporting gender inequality, any more than writing about depravity is supporting depravity. To paraphrase Ebert in his 4 star review of George Romero's "Dawn of the Dead," "A movie can be about depravity without being depraved."
Personally, though, I tend to err on the side of more female NPCs in my writing than male NPCs, particularly when it comes to positions of power or prominence in a story line. Thus, for Burnt Offerings as an example, the mayor of the town is a woman, the primary villain of the adventure is a woman, the most significant PC ally is a woman, etc. Pretty much because I try NOT to fall into the trap of only writing from the viewpoint of a man writing in a society with a lot of male-dominated issues and influences. I like to think of myself as a feminist, I guess, but I kinda get nervous claiming that because I'm a man. It's complicated, in other words, and I hope that does at least a little good in there somewhere to answer your question.
First, thank you very much for taking the time out to answer my question. Like just about everyone else I've got campaign settings in my underwear drawer, and I do sometimes stop to tinker around with them. I wanted to bring up the bolded sentence and ask you to expand on it a bit. There's a noticeable trend in RPG writing for blatantly gender-dominant societies - but especially matriarchies - to be portrayed as evil as well as, well, have Man Vision Problems (to wit, drow in D&D and its legacy systems tend to dress in outfits made of floss while their males invest in things like, say, armor). Any feelings or thoughts on how this has been treated for Golarion?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All the awesome
I'm saving this post in a word document, just so you know.
|
Creative Director
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, thank you very much for taking the time out to answer my question. Like just about everyone else I've got campaign settings in my underwear drawer, and I do sometimes stop to tinker around with them. I wanted to bring up the bolded sentence and ask you to expand on it a bit. There's a noticeable trend in RPG writing for blatantly gender-dominant societies - but especially matriarchies - to be portrayed as evil as well as, well, have Man Vision Problems (to wit, drow in D&D and its legacy systems tend to dress in outfits made of floss while their males invest in things like, say, armor). Any feelings or thoughts on how this has been treated for Golarion?
Not well enough.
There IS at least one good matriarchy on Golarion—the nation of Holomog is the largest and most powerful human nation on southern Garund... and possibly on all of Garund, and it's a good-aligned matriarchy. We haven't done much with Holomog yet simply because we haven't done much with southern Garund, but I do want to do something with it some day. I'm relatively sure there are others out there too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wanted to bring up the bolded sentence and ask you to expand on it a bit. There's a noticeable trend in RPG writing for blatantly gender-dominant societies - but especially matriarchies - to be portrayed as evil as well as, well, have Man Vision Problems (to wit, drow in D&D and its legacy systems tend to dress in outfits made of floss while their males invest in things like, say, armor). Any feelings or thoughts on how this has been treated for Golarion?
I like floss...
Eh, Elvanna - wait, I was thinking about the elven queen from Second Darkness, Telandria. Ileosa and Elvanna... yeah.
I am interested in the idea of how important gender is in Golarion societies because it helps me envision what a PC or NPCs occupation relates to that character's image of self. There will always be exceptions, and PCs are likely to be exceptions.What I am most interested is what constitutes the norm, common, rare, or exceptional behavior. It is a matter of frequency and overall acceptance.
For example, let's say there is a female guard sergeant in the city. Would that in the guard be expected (for whatever reason, the guard mostly recruits or promotes women), completely common (the guard is an equal-opportunity employer), uncommon but distinct (i.e. dwarves, elves or some noble families have such traditions) or exceptional (the sergeant has defied the social norms and performed significant feats to gain her positions)? This will probably have impact that character's personality and how she would react to the PCs, particularly in an official capacity. It can say a lot both for the society and for the character herself.
Just removing sexual dimorphism from humans would be enough fuel for a sci-fi/fantasy setting all on its own.