This post is about my perception of a trend regarding hypersexualized women in Pathfinder materials. There’s no one grievous example, and it’s not something I’m going to huff about canceling my subscription or not buying Paizo products any longer. I love Pathfinder materials and think that, as a whole, the company stands head and shoulders above other RPG crowds. Rather, I want to mention it because I wonder if it’s A) a message that Paizo actually wants to send, and B) because I honestly think whatever this trend is can just be done better. It is a very long post, and for that I apologize! I wanted to be as thorough and articulate as possible, however.
That said, the trend itself is this: Whenever topics of a sexual nature come up, or are presented in an AP, the ones either doing the sexual aggression or else being sexually available are almost invariably female. Worse, even in cases where gender should logically not be an issue, it IS made into an issue. Female npcs and villains are consistently portrayed as aggressively bisexual, certain races are designed purely for the benefit of straight, white, male gamers, and – most importantly, in my opinion – none of this actually serves the story.
I am going to start with the most recent examples found in Wrath of the Righteous, and other APs, because I feel like these are most egregious examples. Now, the Wrath of the Righteous was an AP I really enjoyed, in spite of these parts, so I don’t want this to sound like a litany of complaints and nothing more.
First off, I’d like to start with what seems to be the discrepancy in the minds of the male authors who wrote the last 5 books of the campaign; despite the players visiting 2 of the 3 Abyssal realms where “creatures of lust” are common (Noticula and Baphomet’s realms, both of which are described as containing incubi and succubi in the gazetters of both places), and despite demons supposedly not having the same human sexual hang-ups and attractions as heteronormative human men, the players encounter a whopping 13 named, described, and tactically outlined succubi and/or succubi-related creatures (lilltus and half-succubi, hereafter referred to as simply “succubi” for simplification). These succubi are all described as beautiful women, referred to as women, and are set up to be female, even in the one example of a succubus wearing a male form “for work preferences”. All of these creatures are placed in sexual context, all of them try to charm, sleep with, or otherwise use their appearance to interest (male) characters, and have intelligent, complex tactics outlined for dealing with player characters. Of these sexy she-demons, 3 of them are Demon Princes (or nearly so) in power. 8 of them have Mythic status. At least 6 have unique artwork, all of them have unique statblocks, and all also have detailed appearances in the text (with the exception of the occasionally male-appearing succubus, whose male appearance is simply described as “attractive” and “dark”).
And you know what? All of that is GREAT. Perfectly cool, so awesome, and so rad. I love that these clever demons have gotten to where they are, I love the frank portrayal about their tactics, I love the art and how absolutely radical they all are. I like the variation, I like that some of the succubi aren’t portrayed sexually in their artwork, I like that they have unique and varied stats! All of that, by itself, is fine!
What’s not okay is the bizarre disparity between female creatures with overt sexual connotations, and male ones.
There are a total of 3 named incubi in the AP. I don’t even need to include an “incubi-related” tag in this, because there aren’t any. Of those three named incubi, only one has any impact of note on the players. The other two are given names, but are not given any ways to interact with the players. One of the three is merely a footnote in a succubi’s backstory. Of the incubi the players actually encounter, both simply “fight to the death” and do not have any tactics, interest in manipulation, seduction, or charm. In short, these demons with strong, overtly sexual connotations do not have any role in the campaign beyond that of a warrior grunt.
Of the unnamed incubi and succubi, the unnamed succubi are again presented as consorts. There are no incubi consorts. They fill the role of warrior grunts. I want to focus on this particular theme, because I feel that – while any of the Paizo materials could be viewed as “just fine” if seen alone – this best illustrates a strangely constant, heteronormative male-interest undertone that comes at the expense of not only the nonhetero, and non-male, players, but also the world itself.
I don’t think anyone could argue to me that incubi and succubi occupy the same role. They both can change self, they both have an emphasis on seduction, manipulation, intelligence, and control, and they both have a long history in both DnD lore and real world lore of carrying strong, sexual connotations. I genuinely don’t understand the need to specify them as two distinct creatures in the beastiary, much less the need for different stats, but, again, that by itself is fine.
What’s not okay is the way that it’s used. Both of these creatures are sexually charged, interest in lust, described in multiple gazetteers as creatures of lust, and yet only the, inexplicably, physically weaker of the two is placed into positions of sexual subservience. Only the ones placed into sexual subservience have interactions with the players, in Wrath of the Righteous and all other APs where succubi (and, rarely, incubi) are mentioned. Despite the fact that both creatures are almost equal, and despite the fact that both form from souls of lust, and despite many writers’ purported claims that “gender is of no consequence” to shapechangers like succubi and incubi, that is clearly NOT the case.
Aside from the fact that incubi are invariably presented as warrior-grunts with no sexuality, I’m going to return to the male-form-wearing succubus mentioned in the “City of Locusts” AP. Whatever the author’s intentions were, this is not a transgeder character. Again, I would LOVE for that to be so; however, she is not. She wears this form in relation to her work at the brothel. She is the least-described succubus of the SIX succubus who work the all-female-staffed brothel (save for two disgusting fly-demons who serve as butler and cook), and she has no possibility of interaction with the players given the fact that she is the only one currently entertaining a client when the players arrive; additionally, unlike some of the other succubi, she does not have any “redemption-worthy” features. Again, she is presented as the most likely to simply be killed of the succubi. More importantly, however, is the reason she is not transgender: demons are not born. Yes, on OCCASION there are certain demon backstories where they are the product of birth, rather than forming from a soul’s desires; this is not one of those cases. Her soul, when it was morphing into a demon, desired to be a succubus rather than an incubus. It’s that simple.
The other piece of this that I’d like to return to is the matter of “gender is of no consequence” that Paizo often attaches to succubi. That would be great! Except it clearly DOES matter, since A) only succubi are ever presented with the opportunity to sexually attract players, and B) if gender truly “did not matter”, then why does it matter if the creature doing the seduction is male or female, when their appearance is whatever the PC desires anyways? I want to discuss this question seriously, because this is what really burns me the most. In a world that purports to be free of the gender inequality that strangles the real world, Golarion is remarkably geared towards what straight, heteronormative men want to see. If gender didn’t matter, then why isn’t the succubus brothel staffed by 6 incubus instead? Does anybody think that would matter to the players? If it does matter, why? Their base forms might be male, sure, but in this case, 4 of the 6 incubi would still appear as completely female, with one androgynous one, and then the one congruous one would still be killed immediately by the players, so honestly, what does it matter?
Logically, it shouldn’t matter. We all know it does. And that’s fine, I’m not writing this to push people’s boundaries. Where it DOES matter, however, is how sexually objectified men are consistently ignored, forgotten about, or even outright DERIDED. This is a quote from “Curse of the Lady’s Light”, the 2nd book in the Shattered Star AP, and written by Mike Shel: “Neither Sorshen nor Nocticula bothered recording the names of the incubi who served.”
Why does that addition matter? Why is that piece even mentioned? Why would the pansexual Runelord of Lust bother making a distinction between genders? Why would the Demon Prince of Lust, who can shapechange just as easily as any other ‘cubi creature, make that distinction?
I know the real answer, of course; men as sexual objects is an extremely uncomfortable subject for these writers, so there’s an AP like City of Locusts full of pin-up girls and stuff only purely hetero men would be interested in. This isn’t a new thing either, or a “one writer, one time” incident. “Curse of the Lady’s Light” is an adventure where the (clearly intended to be male) PCs venture into a compound full of enthralled women, in bordello-like surroundings, and fight succubi, alu-fiends, specifically FEMALE lustspawn, and oh by the way, all of these women have hot lesbian connotations surrounding them. Of the total encounters in the AP, there Is one unnamed, unimportant incubus. Guess what his job is! He’s a warrior-grunt, guarding the door. There is one other male creature in the AP – an enthralled dhampir, cast off as undesirable now that the alu-fiend can pursue a lesbian relationship. He has nothing more to do with the players should they free him.
The impossibility of men in positions of sexual subservience, or being viewed as sexual objects, continues throughout all of Paizo’s materials. I already mentioned the incubus/succubus split, where the incubus is removed from “clever seducer” to simply “stupid warrior-grunt rapist” (and accompanied by a remarkably nonsexual, remarkably unattractive picture of a generic demon that in no way fits the utterly generic “dark and attractive” line Paizo uses to describe any physically attractive male creature). It’s a long-running theme, however, and can be seen across the whole last ten years. Nocticula has gotten a number of different depictions; in the latest AP, the original book containing the Demon Princes and in the new book as well. Her lusty brother, Socothbenoth has gotten one – in the original depiction of him (alongside Nocticula). He has not been depicted since, despite mentions of him in newer materials. The Lashunta are a more stupid example, in my own opinion, of allowing someone to insert his love of nude chicks riding dinosaurs while spitting on anyone not interested in those nude chicks. Lashunta women are described as “tall, extremely attractive human or elven women” and are gifted, intelligent, articulate babes that wear as little as possible on their hothouse planet. They have at least 2-3 art depictions of female Lashunta.
Lashunta men are described as “short, warlike, brutish and aggressive”, so stocky that they are almost as wide as they are tall. There are no depictions of male lashunta. Why? I mean, not like I’m interested in playing one, because the fact that there is no equivalent race in all of Pathfinder’s materials disgusts me, but if this is meant to be an optional player race (and it is included as an option in some material), why wouldn’t there be a depiction of male lashunta, even as terrible and unattractive as they are?
It’s not just new, alien races either. Old creatures, like driders, have been edited too. How many of you knew that male driders turn bug-faced when they’re turned into driders? I actually had no idea until very recently! That’s great though, don’t worry – female driders still have certifiably hot lady-parts. The curse can determine what genders it wants to turn into scary cannon fodder and what genders it wants to keep for sexy art purposes. What would happen to an intersex drow that got turned into a drider? Who knows! Probably though it’d just keep all its sexy lady-parts and be a lady-drider in appearance.
Of course, it’s hard to decide whether hideous men/attractive, gorgeous, male-gaze-satisfying women races are better, or worse than those races that are solely female – BUT! – also still fully satisfying that all-important male gaze! The “strictly female” changeling race is probably another straight-up stupid example of this but another terrible offender is the thraie. Actually it was the recent addition of a new thraie creature in “The Shifting Sands” AP that really galvanized this post. The thraie, for those of you who do not know, are conventionally attractive women with all the necessary lady-parts that heteronormative men find attractive, a couple of bee-like appendages tossed on, and an absolute need to mate with humanoid males in order to continue their species. Why are there no male thraie filling that role? Who cares! What purpose does their attractive-to-straight-white-males beauty/body type serve? Well… none, really. They keep male humanoids drugged up, specifically DO NOT develop romantic attachments or relationships to them (view them as “favored pets” at best), and then eat them for nutrients when they die. Their physical appearance is utterly irrelevant, save for serving as fodder for male gaze.
Which I genuinely do not understand. I mean, I want to be clear – while I would dearly love for Paizo to publish material that includes appeal to non-hetero male gazers, I realize that isn’t always possible, and can make people uncomfortable. That’s fine! That’s not the ONLY solution, however. There is another possibility – to just not publish material like the stuff I listed anymore.
Don’t print more all-female, nude attractive girl races. Don’t print all-female-staffed brothels. No more dumb-dumb axe-wieldy incubi serving as simple cannon-fodder. If someone writes that stuff, correct them. While I love adult issues in campaigns, and I love seeing people handle them maturely, I don’t like it when female players roll their eyes and can only grudgingly participate in an AP. I don’t like trying to justify to myself why a race like the thraie, or the lashunta, shouldn’t simply be exterminated on sight in defiance of the dominant culture foisting its views on what’s attractive to me. I don’t like the harm it does to my experience of Pathfinder APs, and I don’t like having to swallow my irritation and anger every time I read about another race that just seems to serve as personal fantasy fodder for purely hetero dudes.
I love Pathfinder. I really do. I say this because I want Pathfinder to be perfect, and because I whole-heartedly respect their efforts to be socially progressive, to be mindful of women’s experiences in tabletop games. I don’t think it is at all hard for it to do better, and the material that I’m talking about should not matter, and I can’t imagine someone paying 30 bucks for a book (or not) based on whether it’s got enough scantily-clad girls in it. At least, not for an RPG book that isn’t using that as its main selling point :P
TL/DR
In short, I’ve perceived that there is a trend of women being placed in positions of sexual subservience, while men – even of the exact same lusty race – are not. It’s a weirdly consistent, borderline fetishistic constant throughout a LOT of Pathfinder materials, and while I’d love to see some real equivalence, I understand that’s not always possible. Failing equivalence, however, there’s another option: to not send that message at all, by no longer allowing material that perpetuates it. I’m not die-hard and bitter about this, however, and I’d love to hear other people’s experiences or reactions, to this, the material I’ve talked about, or whatever you feel like adding (if you feel like you have something to add).
