Just back on topic...I would like to add my my voice to the praise of Pazio for the inclusion of homosexuals in Golarion as NPCs.
Also a note on Christain influence in D&D...you guys realize the most things in Western civ. has influenced and roots to Christainity right?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The nunnery is Shakespearean-era slang for the whorehouse.But... wenches!
It's difficult to write a cogent sentence of modern English without using at least two pieces of Elizabethan sexual slang. Much Ado About Nothing can be read as "Much Ado About Penises."
Any time he talks about wit you get a double entendre too. Same meaning as nothing. Which, yes, means Rowling made a sex joke when she wrote the motto: Wit beyond measure is man's greatest treasure.
Not quite right.
Nothing/Noting is slang for vagina.
It makes more sense in a way, denoting a cavity...
Although, we're getting a bit off topic here, probably just making something out of nothing!
** spoiler omitted **
I misremembered. Thank you for setting me straight. So to speak. I confess I am no connoisseur of the subject under consideration.
*rimshot*
|
In antiquity, role was more important than orientation. It was socially acceptable for men in Rome to be the dominant (penetrator) but not the bottom. Greece you were expected to move from the passive role to the active role as you got older. Amongst Amerindian tribes if you were the passive you were a woman simple as that. Your gender was determined by your actions not your biological bits.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention that not only was their income and choice of labor limited, but they might not be allowed to own property at all. Income doesn't mean much if you're not allowed to buy anything with it. (This was the case until the late 1800s in England, and mid 1800s in most of America.)
For that matter, there are still remnants of it in "civilized" countries. The writer of Downton Abbey is married to a woman who is not allowed to inherit the British title that should be hers because she is female. Right now. In the 21st century. In a first-world country.
Even in our society where daughters are no longer the property of their fathers until they become the property of their husbands, we have remnants of that mindset -- the father giving away his daughter at a wedding is a tradition left over from when he was literally transferring ownership of the woman to his son-in-law.
Again, it's a spectrum. It varies in magnitude, but I'm not seeing how it varies in *kind* from slavery: you are considered an inferior being, other people have the right to beat or kill you at their discretion, as well as using your body for their own ends, you don't have a choice about what you do, you can be punished for running away, you aren't paid for your labor, or if you are you're not allowed to own anything so the money you earn belongs to someone else, and you may even be legally defined as another's property.
And yes, I'm sure many of the men enforcing these types of societies felt that they were good-willed, and considered theirs a "free" society.
So I'll reiterate: a society with limited and subordinate roles for women is not a free society.
Contributor
|
Not to mention that not only was their income and choice of labor limited, but they might not be allowed to own property at all. Income doesn't mean much if you're not allowed to buy anything with it. (This was the case until the late 1800s in England, and mid 1800s in most of America.)
For that matter, there are still remnants of it in "civilized" countries. The writer of Downton Abbey is married to a woman who is not allowed to inherit the British title that should be hers because she is female. Right now. In the 21st century. In a first-world country.
Even in our society where daughters are no longer the property of their fathers until they become the property of their husbands, we have remnants of that mindset -- the father giving away his daughter at a wedding is a tradition left over from when he was literally transferring ownership of the woman to his son-in-law.
Again, it's a spectrum. It varies in magnitude, but I'm not seeing how it varies in *kind* from slavery: you are considered an inferior being, other people have the right to beat or kill you at their discretion, as well as using your body for their own ends, you don't have a choice about what you do, you can be punished for running away, you aren't paid for your labor, or if you are you're not allowed to own anything so the money you earn belongs to someone else, and you may even be legally defined as another's property.
And yes, I'm sure many of the men enforcing these types of societies felt that they were good-willed, and considered theirs a "free" society.
So I'll reiterate: a society that with limited and subordinate roles for women is not a free society.
Interestingly, in Spain, noble titles are covered by equality of inheritance. Women can inherit these titles and courts have split up titles among heirs of either gender.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I'll reiterate: a society that with limited and subordinate roles for women is not a free society.
Or limited/subordinate roles for anyone, really.
(Not aiming to invalidate your point, merely to underscore it.)
|
|
For that matter, there are still remnants of it in "civilized" countries. The writer of Downton Abbey is married to a woman who is not allowed to inherit the British title that should be hers because she is female. Right now. In the 21st century. In a first-world country.
The real problem here is that the titles confer unearned and undeserved influence and position.
Advocating for women's inclusion in a system which unfairly distributes power and influence is, to my mind, a misunderstanding of that part of the problem.
We still have an unelected House of Lords, including people who get their influence because... Jesus.
Must be a English/Welsh based Title...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For that matter, there are still remnants of it in "civilized" countries. The writer of Downton Abbey is married to a woman who is not allowed to inherit the British title that should be hers because she is female. Right now. In the 21st century. In a first-world country.The real problem here is that the titles confer unearned and undeserved influence and position.
Advocating for women's inclusion in a system which unfairly distributes power and influence is, to my mind, a misunderstanding of that part of the problem.
We still have an unelected House of Lords, including people who get their influence because... Jesus.
No argument there. :-) Just pointing out that misogynistic inheritance laws are still on the books in some first-world countries. This stuff isn't Stuff That Happened Long Ago And Is No Longer Relevant.
|
Contributor
|
My impression is that only a few hereditary peers are in the House of Lords and they are on their way out... The author of Downton, for the record, is himself a Life Peer, and his wife is the niece of the last Earl Kitchener (as in the General).
It wouldn't surprise me if inheritance of peerages, once they become purely symbolic, will be more egalitarian soon. Women have had more rights of inheritance in Scotland, notably.
The trouble from a world-building standpoint (as with D. A., for that matter) is that class and status issues are going to make for interesting stories. I realise one can make an egalitarian society interesting (i.e., The Dispossessed), but usually it is interesting in counterpoint to status issues in either our or a compared society in the story. While we can discard unfairness in terms of sexuality or gender in an archetypically good society, we probably won't call it high fantasy if it doesn't have an aristocratic element.
I wonder if a good definition of a Good society in a fantasy gaming context is one that is mostly consciously progressing toward a more fair and humane society, at least in comparison to the average culture in the setting?
This allows the flawed Andoren society to be CG in a clear way, while LN cultures like Druma resist this sort of thing in a vaguely conservative way, while NE cultures like Nidal are creating new obstacles and hierarchies deliberately.
The same thing could be true of a character: a good character tries to ameliorate the negative aspects of others' lives in a way that is at least good-intentioned. But that doesn't mean they're good at it or particularly enlightened.
I absolutely believe that class and status issues make for interesting storytelling, and I like that there are countries in Golarion that have evil practices that tie into those questions. But I prefer that the world overall have a fairly egalitarian viewpoint so that I have a choice about how my character views herself and her status, even if she then chooses to go into a country where she may not be treated fairly (because she's female, or because she's an elf, or because she's a witch).
|
Contributor
|
I absolutely believe that class and status issues make for interesting storytelling, and I like that there are countries in Golarion that have evil practices that tie into those questions. But I prefer that the world overall have a fairly egalitarian viewpoint so that I have a choice about how my character views herself and her status, even if she then chooses to go into a country where she may not be treated fairly (because she's female, or because she's an elf, or because she's a witch).
True. The same goes for me. I don't like being told that my black female juju practitioner is going to have to deal with racism, religious stereotypes, and sexism as a fiat, unless I agree that I want to deal with it for roleplaying purposes...
I wonder, though, if egalitarianism (in its broadest sense) is common in Golarion:
Andoran is mostly egalitarian, as is, I think, Hwanggot.
Kyonin is a monarchy, but we don't know if it's hereditary or elective.
Hermea is probably, if you're a citizen, an unbiased place, except for the fact that it's a dictatorship.
The Mammoth Lords are probably "might makes right" and gender and sexuality are unimportant, but being a fierce person is. It may not be the greatest place for a lot of people. They also practice slavery.
Military semi-meritocracies like Lastwall and Mendev are probably OK places, though they may have holdover social stratifications.
Kaer Maga is pretty free-wheeling and libertarian.
In Tian Xia, Hwanggot, Jinin (? they have samurai), and Zi Ha, are presumably fairly equitable places.
However... this is way more egalitarian than our world was in the medieval/renaissance period.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just want to say thanks. This is, I think, the first time I've encountered game talk meets diversity discussion without it being completely toxic.
|
Contributor
|
Speaking of Zi Ha, & the Samsarans...
Do they reincarnate as different genders? This would be in keeping with the source material (RW notions of reincarnation), but I see no specifics in the write-ups.
If so, it would be interesting to do the whole reincarnating lovers storyline with these people.
The Mammoth Lords are probably "might makes right" and gender and sexuality are unimportant, but being a fierce person is. It may not be the greatest place for a lot of people. They also practice slavery.
Amiri's story clearly explicitly presents Six Bears tribe of that region are sexist and implies that other tribes are sexist too.
|
Contributor
|
The Mammoth Lords are probably "might makes right" and gender and sexuality are unimportant, but being a fierce person is. It may not be the greatest place for a lot of people. They also practice slavery.Amiri's story clearly explicitly presents Six Bears tribe of that region are sexist and implies that other tribes are sexist too.
Yeah, you're right.
|
Not to mention that not only was their income and choice of labor limited, but they might not be allowed to own property at all. Income doesn't mean much if you're not allowed to buy anything with it. (This was the case until the late 1800s in England, and mid 1800s in most of America.)
Actually, that is almost never, and has never been the case. In pretty much all of western society, women have always been able to both own and purchase land, and basically anything else they wanted just like men. Now, the ability to actually afford it is a differenet story. This is true from day one of america and pre-dark ages europe, Rome empire, etc. . .
For that matter, there are still remnants of it in "civilized" countries. The writer of Downton Abbey is married to a woman who is not allowed to inherit the British title that should be hers because she is female. Right now. In the 21st century. In a first-world country.
Thats the thing about titles and heraldry. They follow very specific routes of who they are passed on to, which is established as they are gotten, and they do that for a reason. A true family heraldic crest only passes to the first born son, for example, not the family, not the only daughter who would leave the family that earned it, not the second son or the wife. At the same time, there are just as many female titles and positions as there are male, and a male would not be able to inheret a female one in he same circumstances. Also note that with titles, the current possesser does not (usually) have any authority or say in who will recieve it, no choice in the matter, and no say either way.
I do know in Massachusetts Women would be paid as equals to Men but would be charged more if they went to any store that wasn't "Meant for Women".
|
Contributor
|
Not to mention that not only was their income and choice of labor limited, but they might not be allowed to own property at all. Income doesn't mean much if you're not allowed to buy anything with it. (This was the case until the late 1800s in England, and mid 1800s in most of America.)Actually, that is almost never, and has never been the case. In pretty much all of western society, women have always been able to both own and purchase land, and basically anything else they wanted just like men. Now, the ability to actually afford it is a differenet story. This is true from day one of america and pre-dark ages europe, Rome empire, etc. . .
For that matter, there are still remnants of it in "civilized" countries. The writer of Downton Abbey is married to a woman who is not allowed to inherit the British title that should be hers because she is female. Right now. In the 21st century. In a first-world country.Thats the thing about titles and heraldry. They follow very specific routes of who they are passed on to, which is established as they are gotten, and they do that for a reason. A true family heraldic crest only passes to the first born son, for example, not the family, not the only daughter who would leave the family that earned it, not the second son or the wife. At the same time, there are just as many female titles and positions as there are male, and a male would not be able to inheret a female one in he same circumstances. Also note that with titles, the current possesser does not (usually) have any authority or say in who will recieve it, no choice in the matter, and no say either way.
Off-topic:
Some of my ancestors (by coincidence I am descended from more than one hopeful social climber) tried to prove they were senior co-heir to a barony, so I learned all about this stuff idly going through 18th and 19th century family papers.
The thing with "Surrender for Re-Granting" is it typically required the current holder to either become a willing exile or "fall on their sword" (I.E.: Commit Suicide).
@Jeff Erwin: I am technically the current head of both my Scottish Clan and Viking Tribe. It is not as nice as people think...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention that not only was their income and choice of labor limited, but they might not be allowed to own property at all. Income doesn't mean much if you're not allowed to buy anything with it. (This was the case until the late 1800s in England, and mid 1800s in most of America.)Actually, that is almost never, and has never been the case. In pretty much all of western society, women have always been able to both own and purchase land, and basically anything else they wanted just like men. Now, the ability to actually afford it is a differenet story. This is true from day one of america and pre-dark ages europe, Rome empire, etc. . .
Incorrect.
Single adult women in early America could often own and sell property, but if they married, it became the property of their husband. And practically speaking, it was nearly impossible for most women to survive as unmarried adult woman, unless they were widowed.
The first state to pass a law giving married women control over their own property was Connecticut in 1809. However, most states didn't pass similar laws until the 1850s. I hardly consider something extant for 75 years in a country less than 300 years old to be "true from day one."
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention that not only was their income and choice of labor limited, but they might not be allowed to own property at all. Income doesn't mean much if you're not allowed to buy anything with it. (This was the case until the late 1800s in England, and mid 1800s in most of America.)Actually, that is almost never, and has never been the case. In pretty much all of western society, women have always been able to both own and purchase land, and basically anything else they wanted just like men. Now, the ability to actually afford it is a differenet story. This is true from day one of america and pre-dark ages europe, Rome empire, etc. . .Incorrect.
Single adult women in early America could often own and sell property, but if they married, it became the property of their husband. And practically speaking, it was nearly impossible for most women to survive as unmarried adult woman, unless they were widowed.
The first state to pass a law giving married women control over their own property was Connecticut in 1809. However, most states didn't pass similar laws until the 1850s. I hardly consider something extant for 75 years in a country less than 300 years old to be "true from day one."
And both the Roman Empire (and the later, extremely influential, Napoleonic Code) severely restricted women's property rights. The wife had no separate legal existence.
The Visigothic Code was a significant exception, as was Islamic law.We see a figment of that notion (that the woman's rights merged into the husband's) in community property states here in the US, though the law is now even-handed in its treatment of the genders/partners.
The only Golarion Deity I see being that obsessed with procreation might be Lamashtu.
Now on the other hand, a society might become that procreation focused, probably because of some extreme external threat that winds up killing off members at a rate that requires fertile females to be almost constantly either pregnant, or recovering from pregnancy. Of course that leads in to the potential for a gender/power dichotomy as well.
Why am I thinking somewhere down in Orv?..
|
|
TanithT: Too bad the Goddess of Fertility (from the Dragon Empires at least) is suggested to be in a lesbian relationship with the Goddess of Agriculture. ^_~ Although I'm sure those pushing this kind of regime would probably deny such a thing...
The thing with "Surrender for Re-Granting" is it typically required the current holder to either become a willing exile or "fall on their sword" (I.E.: Commit Suicide).
@Jeff Erwin: I am technically the current head of both my Scottish Clan and Viking Tribe. It is not as nice as people think...
Viking Tribe... is that an American thing? Cause I've never heard a Scandinavian claim to know even what part of their country their viking age ancestors lived in, seeing as there's extremely little first-hand documentation of non-power players in the region before the 14th century, and even then you have Swedish 13th century kings where we're not sure if their grandfather's uncle may in fact have been his dad, or maybe brother.
And even if we disregard the difficulty of tracing someone's ancestry that far back in this part of the world, political power weren't really hereditary in Scandinavia - it certainly helped if your parents were strong political figures, but you still needed the other important men of the family-grouping, geographic region, or land (depending on what post you were trying to ascend to) to give their approval - one reason that the medieval Kalmar Union between Sweden, Denmark, and Norway didn't work out was that all three kingdoms had an elected king, so whenever the Danes picked a king the Swedes didn't like, you'd have a rebellion and a de facto independent Sweden going its own way if the rebellion succeeded.
Just back on topic...I would like to add my my voice to the praise of Pazio for the inclusion of homosexuals in Golarion as NPCs.You know what would be really weird? Not having any homosexual NPC's. By sheer percentages, that would just be bizarre and unrealistic.
Also a note on Christain influence in D&D...you guys realize the most things in Western civ. has influenced and roots to Christainity right?.....and Golarion has what to do with Western civilization?
I don't get your first comment...are you agreeing with me? Or mocking me?
Lets...see here....Golarion was created by a bunch of guys that used myths and legends from western civ(and others). Oh D&D and by extension Pathfinder was heavily influenced by Tolkien who was in turn influenced by western civ...and Christainity....the list goes on.
Now I am not saying Paladins should be forced to be Christain cutouts in a fantasy world...but saying that they have christain roots is just blind. Though I will add that if one of my players chooses to RP a Paldine like a christain and than decides to go on a crusdae against the gays...he will quickly loose his paladinship. The Bible does have stronger rules against that than any taboos on sexuality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get your first comment...are you agreeing with me? Or mocking me?
Lets...see here....Golarion was created by a bunch of guys that used myths and legends from western civ(and others). Oh D&D and by extension Pathfinder was heavily influenced by Tolkien who was in turn influenced by western civ...and Christainity....the list goes on.
That "and others" isn't exactly a footnote, you know.
Western civ may hold a certain amount of primacy simply because everyone here lives in the western hemisphere, but Golarion was created (and continues to be created) by a bunch of people who used myths and legends from all over the world. And Werner Herzog documentaries. And discoveries in astronomy. And influences from different scifi and fantasy books and movies, and comics. And Lovecraft (who was influenced more by eastern civ). And a bunch of other stuff.
And just because a piece of fiction is influenced by a particular myth, tradition, or whatever doesn't mean the people writing it have signed some sort of contract to include all elements of that myth/culture/tradition in their creative output. That's the thing about writing your own stuff: you get to pick and choose which elements you keep, and which you toss.
Lets...see here....Golarion was created by a bunch of guys that used myths and legends from western civ(and others). Oh D&D and by extension Pathfinder was heavily influenced by Tolkien who was in turn influenced by western civ...and Christainity....the list goes on.All true. And I ask again - what does Golarion have to do with Western civilization? There are influences, certainly, but it is a creatively bankrupt storyteller who has nothing to write about past a poor copy of their own world.
You are right....I just disagree with a previous statement that stated there was no relationship...which is wrong. The Paladin class is rich with Christain traditions. Charlemagne's Paladins were representions of Christain martail prowess vs the Saracen horses. The Athurian Knights of the round table were also devout christains for the most part. It is not surprising that alot of people still asscociate oath of chasity with Paladins...because it is what we as a people know.
And just because a piece of fiction is influenced by a particular myth, tradition, or whatever doesn't mean the people writing it have signed some sort of contract to include all elements of that myth/culture/tradition in their creative output. That's the thing about writing your own stuff: you get to pick and choose which elements you keep, and which you toss.
Never said you had too and really should not either. But again people should not ignore those influences either. It like people who believe history is unimportant.
The words we use are important. If we were to say have a ultra civilized class that live in cities and we called it the Barbarian...people will be confused. Or a wizard that is a class that nevers cast spells...or a knight class that does not wear armor or rides a horse. Likewise the word Paladin invokes a ton of Christainty thinking in people who know were that word comes from. It can't be helped.
Now...I having read the background and the oaths of Paladins in the Faiths of seris understands what a Paladin in Golarion is. And I appreciate the differences in the way the creators at Pazio have made it their own. But you should not be surprised when people come along and think Christain warrior type when the hear the word Paladins.
Actually, the word "Paladin" is a whole lot more specific than "Christian warrior type". It denote an actual station in the HRE, whereas "wizard" or "ranger" do not. But then again "Druid"...
|
Never said you had too and really should not either. But again people should not ignore those influences either. It like people who believe history is unimportant... But you should not be surprised when people come along and think Christain warrior type when the hear the word Paladins.
No, but it is also disingenuous to bring in and impose outside baggage on the setting. One can be aware of history and influence without exaggerating it.
No, but it is also disingenuous to bring in and impose outside baggage on the setting. One can be aware of history and influence without exaggerating it.
Never said you had too and really should not either. But again people should not ignore those influences either. It like people who believe history is unimportant... But you should not be surprised when people come along and think Christain warrior type when the hear the word Paladins.
Can you read? I am very confused where did I stated that Paladin must be Christain in Golarion...actualy the post above says exactly the opposite.
Just pointing out that there is influence when somebody in this thread denied the existence of any influence.
@Kajehase: It mostly is do to them mixing into my Gaulic & Celtic Ancestors. When that occurred they started keeping records. Yes... My family is horribly weird...
And are we talking the Roman Empire, the Roman Democratic Republic, or the Roman Imperial Republic?
Roman Empire: Women had no rights
Roman Democratic Republic: Women had minor right.
Roman Imperial Republic: Women had the rights of Men 1 class lower than their own class until they married then they used their husbands rights as the base.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, but it is also disingenuous to bring in and impose outside baggage on the setting. One can be aware of history and influence without exaggerating it.
Never said you had too and really should not either. But again people should not ignore those influences either. It like people who believe history is unimportant... But you should not be surprised when people come along and think Christain warrior type when the hear the word Paladins.Can you read? I am very confused where did I stated that Paladin must be Christain in Golarion...actualy the post above says exactly the opposite.
Just pointing out that there is influence when somebody in this thread denied the existence of any influence.
I don't think anyone's denied any influence -- a number of people have just said that it doesn't matter whether the paladin is based on Christian knights -- the fictional paladin isn't a Christian knight, and doesn't have to conform to any Christian strictures.
So I'm not sure what you want, here. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Golarion has no relationship to Christianity nor to Western/European history.
You might want to check out the goings-on in the Reign of Winter threads...
Golarion has no relationship to Christianity nor to Western/European history.You might want to check out the goings-on in the Reign of Winter threads...
Which threads?
A hint:
The name Rasputin is featured prominently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Grigori Yefimovich.