Radbod Jarl's page

Not a rules question, but this seemed to be the best place to post the query. I was out of the loop on PFS for a good few years, and a lot's changed. One element of which is the Archiving of the old Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild threads. So I was wondering: are there any In Character discussion threads that are left/were set up to replace the Roleplaying Guild, where people can have their characters just hang out and interact with one another?

...aaaaaand with that last sentence, there's her other motive.

Myself, I'm reading The Fountains of Paradise by Arthur C. Clarke, and I'm re-reading Days on Infamy by Turtledove. And wishing, as I do, that he'd had Japanese characters in Worldwar - wouldn't have minded seeing Admiral Yamamoto mixing it up with Fleetlord Atvar...

'A Clash of Kings'

- I read 'A Game of Thrones' a while back when the TV series first came out (I wanted to read the book before watching it's adaptation), yet the first book I found terribly boring. About a week ago I ended up finally watching the first season of the TV series and it got me hooked again. Since then I have been plowing through 'A Clash of Kings' and I am loving it!.

'The Black Company'
- Being a huge fan of Steven Erikson (Malazan Book of the Fallen) I picked this one up after he commented on it being an influence to him. To be honest, I am a third of the way through and not really enjoying it... just has not grabbed me - I suspect it is the characters. I just do not find them engaging.

'The Dark Tower'
- Started reading this because everyone seems to rave about it. Nearly finished it and I do not think I will pick up the sequal(s). I guess it is just not my cup of tea. Anyone else have a similar experience?

'The Bone Hunters'
- Love Steven Erikson. Love the Malazan series. Books 1, 2 and 3 were particularly excellent (which fan doesn't say that?). However, I also really enjoyed book 4 and somewhat book 5. I had a break mid-way through book 5 (series fatigue I guess) but finished it a few months back and want to get back into it. Started 'The Bone Hunters' today.

'ScareCrow'
- I picked this up as a freebie to burn some time... and before I knew it I had churned through the first 40 pages and was hooked. Easy read. Candy for the brain and full of action. After doing some quick research I found it is the third Matt Reilly book for the Scarecrow character - but it reads like a stand alone. I should be finished it pretty quickly. A fun time filler.

Hope you don't mind my asking - was just curious, what did you make of Matthew Reilly? I used to be a big-time fan, and I'd still enjoy a look sometimes, but I was curious since you said you were in the military. I have no idea about how accurate or not Reilly's material is, but I know a few ex-servicemen (including my grandfather) who whenever they read or watch action stuff that gets details wrong, it spoils their enjoyment of it.

Given that I was the one who brought Aliens into this thing, I'll try to set things right...

In all seriousness, one of the reasons I got into Sci-fi and fantasy in the first place was because most good stories in the genre are gender-blind. Even politically right-wing authors have produced heroines like Honor Harrington, to say nothing of every other woman in the Royal Manticoran Navy. One of the things I always loved in Sci-fi was the idea of better worlds where people were judged on merit, not on race or gender or religion. So when I see authors being sexist - and female authors getting hate mail for taking a stand - I feel pretty damn betrayed.

Hmmm. The way I see it:

When a story takes a well-designed, interesting, and fully realized character and adds sexuality, it's an improvement.

And when a story takes a flat, cardboard, one-dimensional character and adds sexuality, it's still an improvement.

So... what was the objection again? If you don't like flat, dull characters, fine. But sexing them up is irrelevant to that.

Except that it's not an improvement to add sexuality to a flat, cardboard, one-dimensional character. If anything, it makes things worse, as it looks like (and is often the case) that that character's just there so male readers have eye-candy. I'm sorry, but I don't think a 1D character is improved when 1 becomes 34 and another 'D' joins the first.

Peh. Trying for snark and getting it wrong is so painful. I need to stop hurrying out posts. What I meant was a sarcastic remark about how "nature couldn't have anything to do with looks".

Anyway, my point is that yes, many people do clean up well, and some bad looks are due to lack of effort. However, a cleft lip, even if corrected, a scar, psoriasis, countless other malformations and wounds, or just simply an unattractive facial configuration can shoot a person's prospects of being attractive to hell forever. A short man gets the same, and there is nothing they can do about it. Ifgiven a choice, children, always go for being attractive over being ugly, you know? And yet... So many keep repeating the mantra that "anyone can be attractive if they just put in the effort"... Placing the responsibility for their unattractiveness on the person, who could have put in the effort.

Quote:

I get your point - it's the equivalent of the 'if you're so smart, why ain't you rich' thing that puts responsibility for poverty on the poor person rather than on society/his employers/the government.

Point - I guess it's not the best example, but the point still stands - women like Vasquez are under-represented when compared to waif-fu masters.

Also, Shifty - couldn't agree more

Hey hey hey... It seems to be an adopted policy that literally EVERYONE can look good if they put in the effort to do so. Or, otherwise put, if someone does not look good, say some german tourist or so, it is ENTIRELY their own fault for not putting in the effort. Don't try telling anyone that looks have anything to do with nurture here, okay?

Actually, this raises the even thornier point of strong women in fiction who *don't* look conventional attractive either being sidelined or killed. TV Tropes highlighted this with Vasquez from Aliens: she's a Marine, with superior training and combat skills to Ripley...yet she's *not* the heroine? OK, Rioley was pretty kick-ass, but I wouldn't mind seeing a film where it was a woman like Vasquez who was the central character.

Oh, and JonGarrett: just to depress you further, there *are* authors who use fighting Muslims to sell books, their names are Tom Clancy, Jack Higgins and another Tom whose last name I won't use because he has a habit of popping up in forums here his name gets mentioned...anyone familiar with Baen books will know who I'm talking about.

Radbod Jarl wrote:

female *form... :-P

You know there's an "edit" button, right?

*Now I do :-)

Can't say as I have, but I get your point, lol...

Y'know...this thread suddenly made me think of the Terry Pratchett conundrum: you know, pole-dancing isn't Art but being painted wearing nothing but a small smile and a bunch of grapes is good solid Art, but you can't quite put your finger on why...
Seriously. I've never thought renditions of the female form are misogynistic in the least. My objection's always been when SF/F writers and artists *only* have female characters who are tall, smokin' hot, wear costumes with less than a square inch of fabric...AND HAVE NO OTHER CHARACTERISTICS. I crave diversity in female characters, and while stories increasingly provide this, cover art and comic books are still quite behind.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Pippi, my point is that in my experience women want it both ways. They want to complain when men look, but they also do everything they can to be worth looking at.

They rank hypocrisy of the thing is what makes me laugh.

Is that where this is going?

I want you to step back and look at what you've posted. Really consider it.

Do you honestly think that is a good representation of what you're trying to say? Because if it is, I don't think I have anything more to say to you regarding this subect.

Right. This is my two pence worth on this subject. When women are depicted in a certain way, there's no choice or consent involved. When women dress themselves, that's their choice. Simplistic, but there it is.

Also, before anyone asks: (Epic Linkara voice) I AM A MAN! (Punches the air)

Well, I have a tendency to ramble anyways...

Well, in SF from before the 80s, progressive is always relative. I mean, Robert Heinlein was right-wing, but his Mobile Infantry had men from all around the world in it (including a Japanese guy, who was meant to be the son of a respected officer - and this in the decade following WWII). Plus, the Navy pilots and captains are all women, and they're shown to be damn good at what they do.

Thanks Doodlebug. And sorry for dragging us all slightly OT with Red Sonja - her current incarnation was just the most obvious example of this trope that I could think of off the top of my head.

...and it went from this to a chain-mail bikini? I'd much rather have read a comic with *this* character...

...aaaaand then this particular Frisian jarl felt considerably embarrassed...

Also, the LeGuin quote...why do I get the feeling that when she says 'old-maid scientists' she's referring to Isaac Asimov's flagship character, Dr Susan Calvin? :-)

That I did *not* know, thejeff. Thanks! A case of the original being more progressive than the update...weird.

That *is* a point - I do understand about context, time it was written, etc. And I don't demand that women - on the page, screen or reality - dress a certain way (that really *would* be sexist). My real objection is to fictional female characters who look a certain way...and have zero other characteristics.

The thing is, though, women portrayed in this fashion..OK, using the Red Sonja example. She is, essentially, a one-note character, her entire thing is hitting people with swords and looking sexy. Can anyone tell me one thing about the character, besides maybe her backstory (a misogynist variant on 'Dark Lord burned my village down')?
Now compare that with Sydney Bristow, the heroine of Alias. Did she occasionally dress in a certain way? Sure. But that wasn't *all* she was about. She was a well-rounded, well-defined character, she was as intelligent as non-Mary Sue characters can be...and she didn't try to storm bio-weapon facilities while dressed as a go-go dancer.

Weird...I actually find women more attractive in normal clothing. In fact, I'd say that the iconic picture of Iomedae, in plate armour with a long cloak, is way way better than any picture of Dejah Thoris. Heck, that's why I play a female Paladin, despite being male and not particularly strong. Now I'm not a prude or a stern elder in a Scottish church, I'm just stating my preference.
What annoys me is that there are plenty of strong Sci-Fi female characters who *aren't* competitors for Miss Fanservice: Commander Ivanova from Babylon 5; Captain Janeway from Voyager (OK, a flawed character, but a positive step forward); and Rommie and Beka Valentine from Andromeda. Yet still...the Red Sonja archetype is the standard trope used for women in Sci-Fi, while for men it's a power-armoured space marine. This, I feel, could be inverted.
I shall end with a rant that explains this as being why I stopped liking Mass Effect. Excluding femSheps, there were three strong female characters in the first one, and none were fan-service-y: Ashley wore flak armour; Tali wore an encounter suit; Liara wore a lab coat. All were talented in a particular area, all had well-developed characters and arcs; all were realistic. Then in ME2, we got Australian catsuit lady, a psychic who wore her tattoos, and an alien warrior-nun with a Power-Girl-esque suit window. And none of them were nearly as compelling as the ladies in the previous game... OK, rant over

OOC: Thanks for the in-depth explanation. I did understand the broad strokes from a game perspective - the previous post was in character, since I figured my character would - at first, anyways - find this as confusing and troubling as yours does :-)

Interesting seeing all the posts here on fanservice-ish models. I got a randomised pack of Wizards of the Coast minis for the D&D battle game years ago, before I got into role-playing seriously. Female models were chronically under-represented in proportion to the rest of the box, true...but the three female models there (Alusair Obarskyr, Sharn Cutthroat and Champion of Yondalla) were all wearing proper armour, nothing remotely fanservice-y about them. Heck, I use the Obarskyr for my female Paladin. So maybe this is a case where Wizards got something right :-)
On the main topic, I think it's cool that Paizo is so inclusive. Plus some of the best gamers I know are women, so...