|
@ Deadmanwalking - I'm not saying it is the typical situation, but I can imagine the situation on a pirate ship being quite abusive, and not just towards females. It might be more of a "veterans do what they will, rookies suffer what they must" mentality where the old sailors (who incidentally tend to have more levels) can do anything to the newbies as long as it leaves them able to do their job. It´s not something that is likely to happen in a game, just part of how the setting can be a harsh place and not always roses and white stallions.
This is very possible (though it makes recruiting crews difficult...but there's always shanghaiing). It's also more or less irrelevant to this thread, since it'd apply more or less equally to the men and women.
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 deal breaker. Aside from a few gross physical differences, we don't understand enough of the (relatively small) differences there are between men and women to accurately portray them in a game system.
I'd actually like to see races with more extreme sexual dimorphism. Not necessarily just "Men bigger, stronger, Women, smaller, weaker" either, but different twists. Where gender roles are even stronger and more biologically based than in humans. You see this kind of thing in SF sometimes, more so than in fantasy. Also just more alien in general.
It's easy to see why the published settings/races don't do much of this, but there's still some coolness to it.
Have you checked out the Lashunta? They do this to the point of having entirely different stat mods.
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.
I agree that this is all good information to have.
And most places in the Inner Sea, a female guard will be about as common as a male one and about as remarked on (ie: not at all). There are almost certainly communities which are exceptions to this trend, but they aren't common.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
In general, in Golarion, I'd say it's common. It may be more or less common, or more tied to specific socioeconomic classes/races/families/religions/etc. in various regions.
|
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
2) does this seem possible
3) if changed what do u do differentShare with me plz.
1) I don't. Many of my games include a generous dash of sexism, racism, elitism - and many other isms that stain the hide and underbelly of real life society. I include them not because I believe them (or at least I hope I don't) but because I enjoy the tension and moral shading they add to my campaigns. They create injustices to strive against or exploit, and let my players know there is more goodness to be done in Golarion than what can be achieved at the end of a blade or destructive spell. I try not to overdo it though, mostly it's reflected in the immobility of expected gender rolls for the merchant, servant and poorer classes. Lots of goodwives, daughters on shorter social "leashes" than sons, expectations of ladylike behavior - that sort of thing.
That said, if I'm DMing for a group of strangers I tone down my Dickensian flavor text until they become comfortable with me and each other. After a few sessions many of them thrill at the HBO treatment.
2) Yes, it's possible, but it's difficult. We all come to the table with a bees nest of ideas about gender relations.
3) I guess I answered this above.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Very true. I must admit I didn't even think about that one. Gosh ur weight, age, ur hair, and size matters but ur height and gender don't. Anyone else find that strange?
Man, it's almost like Pathfinder's rules don't map to real-world physics, and that concerns like these are significantly below its level of abstraction. I mean, geez, PF beings get better senses as they age. - because of that whole abstraction thing, y'know?
It's almost like...
Sweet Asmodeus, it's almost like this is a game, based in a genre that doesn't give a flaming damn about realism or something.
Wouldn't that just be a head trip?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the poll. I play with as much cultural negatives as my players are comfortable with. Some are okay with slavery and prejudice in my games, while others aren't. Verisimilitude is only useful for me if it adds fun to the game. Once it stops being fun, I drop it like a bad habit.
Also, I wish there was a way I could hit someone with a sock full of buckles every time they posted "ur" and "plz" ;)
|
|
Very true. I must admit I didn't even think about that one. Gosh ur weight, age, ur hair, and size matters but ur height and gender don't. Anyone else find that strange?Man, it's almost like Pathfinder's rules don't map to real-world physics, and that concerns like these are significantly below its level of abstraction. I mean, geez, PF beings get better senses as they age. - because of that whole abstraction thing, y'know?
It's almost like...
Sweet Asmodeus, it's almost like this is a game, based in a genre that doesn't give a flaming damn about realism or something.
Wouldn't that just be a head trip?
Hur hur. Snarky, but your point rings true. I despise when people try to attribute some scientific exactness to D&D stats. They're generic terms - placeholders at best. Using them as the starting point when defining the variation of humanity? That way lies madness and narcicism.
I took a woman's and gender studies course in college last year and then went through and rewrote a lot of the npcs in my game world. These are sexist groups present in my world but I do my best to have an equal number of male and and female significant NPCs. Its by no means perfect and most games I run have more male players than female but I make a conscious effort twords equality.
Sadly it always seems more realistic to have sexually equal society's in nonhuman races because everybody knows how women were treated in real medieval time.
Very true. I must admit I didn't even think about that one. Gosh ur weight, age, ur hair, and size matters but ur height and gender don't. Anyone else find that strange?Man, it's almost like Pathfinder's rules don't map to real-world physics, and that concerns like these are significantly below its level of abstraction. I mean, geez, PF beings get better senses as they age. - because of that whole abstraction thing, y'know?
It's almost like...
Sweet Asmodeus, it's almost like this is a game, based in a genre that doesn't give a flaming damn about realism or something.
Wouldn't that just be a head trip?
Hur hur. Snarky, but your point rings true. I despise when people try to attribute some scientific exactness to D&D stats. They're generic terms - placeholders at best. Using them as the starting point when defining the variation of humanity? That way lies madness and narcicism.
I attempt to keep my snark classy, yet informative. I do not always succeed, of course, but the spirit is there.
Some compelling reasons for treating genders as equal in Golarion:
Desna, Iomedae, Sarenrae, Shelyn, Calistria, Pharasma, Lamashtu, Urgathoa, Gozreh (god of the wind, goddess of the sea), Nethys (can you work magic?), Gorum (what is your attitude to fighting?), Milani, Alseta, Besmara, Brigh, Gyronna,...
Otherwise, consider all the bloodline possibilities for sorcerers. It doeesn't have to only give magic. Maybe she has just a trace of giant blood or orc or dragon or oread or hag or several other possibilities.
|
Thats kind of my point. How is gender equality possible when it is so female-centric/promonent. The two are mutually exclusive. I have no issue with that, just saying its not the same thing as equality.
I think White Wolf has done it the best, particularly in the original settings, where Paizo has mostly just reversed the norms and called it something else.
When what is so female centric/prominent? There are plenty of male gods. And sorcerer bloodlines aren't gender specific.
|
|
Thats kind of my point. How is gender equality possible when it is so female-centric/promonent. The two are mutually exclusive. I have no issue with that, just saying its not the same thing as equality.
I think White Wolf has done it the best, particularly in the original settings, where Paizo has mostly just reversed the norms and called it something else.
Yeah...not so much. There's complete gender parity among the Iconics, and badass heroes and villains seem to show up in an equal mix of genders.
There do seem to be more female potential love interests in the APs...but that's a very specific area, and not likely to be intentional either. So...I'm not at all sure what you're talking about.
Besides, I agree with Scavion on one point: I'd like to see the man brave enough to be sexist or demeaning to Baba Yaga. (I suspect he wouldn't be a man, afterward. Take that however you like.)
One man did. Why do you think Kostchtchie has such a hate-on for Witches?
Thats kind of my point. How is gender equality possible when it is so female-centric/promonent. The two are mutually exclusive. I have no issue with that, just saying its not the same thing as equality.Is this just another case of gender equality being seen as female dominant?
I believe it is, yes.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[
Thats kind of my point. How is gender equality possible when it is so female-centric/promonent. The two are mutually exclusive. I have no issue with that, just saying its not the same thing as equality.
I think White Wolf has done it the best, particularly in the original settings, where Paizo has mostly just reversed the norms and called it something else.
WW generally had gender parity among supernaturals - this being fairly logical - but not among mundanes (particularly in their pre-modern settings) - and it was set in an approximation of Earth. That won't work in terms of Pathfinder because PF doesn't have templates like vampires or werewolves as standard characters, and the average PC is a normal humanoid; plus, the whole rationale for depicting racism, sexism, and bigotry in the game is that it is a horror-genre version of our world, and not at least touching on these things would be a disservice to the genre (which can be about subverting these prejudices). That's simply not true of Golarion. If Golarion was a horror setting, some sort of prejudice would be part of the package, because horror thrives on injustice. But it's not.
In Call of Cthulhu and Trail of Cthulhu, another setting based on horror and the real world, there's some racism and bigotry presented, but it comes from villainous or close-minded NPCs in the main. I noticed that Eternal Lies, Pelgrane's new campaign set in the '30s, features non-white sample PCs. There's some space for a GM to make the players of these characters miserable if they want to, but its not a standard part of the game. Nor should it be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In general, in Golarion, I'd say it's common. It may be more or less common, or more tied to specific socioeconomic classes/races/families/religions/etc. in various regions.
This, generally speaking, my take on it across Golarion. Since I've been running Jade Regent I basically took this approach with Minkai that the station and cultural norms would dictate the behavior of gender stereotypes.
I portrayed the Samurai caste in Minkai for gender to be a non-issue. Ability to perform your duty mattered, weather that meant swinging a sword, or pouring tea. Women are warriors when it is their duty to be such.
Then on the same hand, I treated the peasant caste of Minkai in a more traditional manner. The females and males both worked the farms, but the females were the ones who ran their household and raised the future generations of farmers/craftsmen. When the samurai caste conscripts peasants for battle, they almost exclusively conscript males. This is done from the standpoint that future generations of farmers needed to be raised in order for the region to flourish, not from the idea that men are strong and tough and women are frail and dainty.
Of course there will be standouts who fly in the face of these traditions, but I simply felt it was a decent way to portray a less than detailed portion of Minkaian society.
Does it match up with my modern sensibilities, of course not, but does it give flavor to a setting? I'd like to think so.
[Thats kind of my point. How is gender equality possible when it is so female-centric/promonent. The two are mutually exclusive. I have no issue with that, just saying its not the same thing as equality.
I think White Wolf has done it the best, particularly in the original settings, where Paizo has mostly just reversed the norms and called it something else.
WW generally had gender parity among supernaturals - this being fairly logical - but not among mundanes (particularly in their pre-modern settings) - and it was set in an approximation of Earth. That won't work in terms of Pathfinder because PF doesn't have templates like vampires or werewolves as standard characters, and the average PC is a normal humanoid; plus, the whole rationale for depicting racism, sexism, and bigotry in the game is that it is a horror-genre version of our world, and not at least touching on these things would be a disservice to the genre (which can be about subverting these prejudices). That's simply not true of Golarion. If Golarion was a horror setting, some sort of prejudice would be part of the package, because horror thrives on injustice. But it's not.
In Call of Cthulhu and Trail of Cthulhu, another setting based on horror and the real world, there's some racism and bigotry presented, but it comes from villainous or close-minded NPCs in the main. I noticed that Eternal Lies, Pelgrane's new campaign set in the '30s, features non-white sample PCs. There's some space for a GM to make the players of these characters miserable if they want to, but its not a standard part of the game. Nor should it be.
I'd disagree with your characterization of horror; horror stories thrive on powerlessness, and use injustice as a narrative tool to help create it.
|
|
Yeah, the comparison seemed odd to me. Since the White Wolf stuff takes place in a real Earth with hidden magic setting, it's pretty much necessary to leave all the real world prejudices in place. It wouldn't look like Earth, particularly historic Earth, without that.
Agreed. It's a weird comparison.
It's probably even less realistic to have the supernatural creatures lack prejudices, since most of them started off as or were raised among humans. It also seems interesting that the evil creatures (like vampires) are less sexist and racist than regular humans.
There are actually several good explanations for that. Many young vampires maintain their prejudices from life...but most who survive gradually lose them, at least in regards to other vampires, simply because that black woman over there might be a 3000 year old Methuselah who can literally kill you with a thought for so much s thinking an insult at her. And you can't know. And because you certainly have more in common with her than with white male mortals simply because she's a vampire and they are not. They do, naturally, often get very prejudiced against non-vampires.
Werewolves have a similar issue with prejudices in capability clearly not applying (though less time to get over it, resulting in significantly more racist or sexist werewolves than vampires, amusingly enough) and are all soldiers in a war with far too few soldiers in it, which means that even if they are prejudiced they can't afford to waste warm bodies.
Most other groups had the level of prejudice you'd expect, really.
|
Contributor
|
I'd disagree with your characterization of horror; horror stories thrive on powerlessness, and use injustice as a narrative tool to help create it.
OK. Though, I'd like to point out that quotidian injustices are among the most common forms of powerlessness that most people experience, and particularly effective as aspects of Horror because they originate not with the natural or random world, but from, in most cases, human malice or incompetence.
|
|
Im refraining from arguing because its been done a billion times already, but Im ferferring to more the setting having mostly women in desirable positions of power (not so much 50/50).
Likewise, with WW, they sort of threw open the doors for (RL) females to join the hobby by more highlighting that things are hard fir everyone, and playing off of the perceptions of weakness people have to use as advantages for the individual. Settings like PF, in my opinion, just take a lot of backwards steps kind of going the affirmitive action route, in game. That basically means that woman are not good enough to earn their positions or compete against men, but since you must have a certain percentage, its not best person for the individual whatever, but, at least to me, gives the impression of just wanting more females in the setting to say its equal or whatever. Cost is much more than its worth, again in my opinion, and not at all a service to anyone, male or female.
Im ferferring to more the setting having mostly women in desirable positions of power (not so much 50/50).
I think DM Beckett's point of view might be coming from reading/playing the APs and modules more than diving into the campaign setting material. As has been proved in the Male Romance Options thread and as James Jacobs has affirmed is intentional, the average party of PCs is going to meet many more allied females in positions of importance than males. That makes Golarion seem a more female-dominated setting than the 50-50 mix that goes on in the background, where the PCs aren't actively adventuring.
For example, the mayors of Sandpoint and Heldren are women. Cheliax, Irissen, Korvosa, and Mendev all have queens; Minkai has an empress. Even the one Venture Captain who has featured prominently in an AP was female. While I'm sure there are equal numbers of kings and other male leaders in the setting, they haven't played as central a role to the APs as the female leaders have, by design. I mean, yeah, the Land of the Linnorm Kings and there's only one woman there, but I don't believe there has been an AP or module where the PCs have gotten up close and personal with any of them.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
When what is so female centric/prominent? There are plenty of male gods. And sorcerer bloodlines aren't gender specific.
Because 30% women-70% men is equal.* Didn't you know? So our 50-50 split is female-centric. :-P
*I am snarking here about a study that showed that when the number of women onscreen in a movie goes above 30%, males in the audience are likely to perceive the scene as having more female characters than male ones.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
Im refraining from arguing because its been done a billion times already, but Im ferferring to more the setting having mostly women in desirable positions of power (not so much 50/50).
Likewise, with WW, they sort of threw open the doors for (RL) females to join the hobby by more highlighting that things are hard fir everyone, and playing off of the perceptions of weakness people have to use as advantages for the individual. Settings like PF, in my opinion, just take a lot of backwards steps kind of going the affirmitive action route, in game. That basically means that woman are not good enough to earn their positions or compete against men, but since you must have a certain percentage, its not best person for the individual whatever, but, at least to me, gives the impression of just wanting more females in the setting to say its equal or whatever. Cost is much more than its worth, again in my opinion, and not at all a service to anyone, male or female.
I feel like we already had this argument, but maybe it was with someone else.
I did a survey of our heads of state, famous wizards, etc. and it came out to under 20% female.
You're right. That is backward. It should be 50%.
Your affirmative action comparison is, well, to put it kindly, way off-base.
Affirmative action in the real world deals with real people with real capabilities (and, of course, real backgrounds that may disadvantage them), so the argument against it is that less qualified people are selected for positions because they're members of minority groups, to the detriment of more-qualified non-minority candidates.
This is a fictional world. For each character an author creates, they decide how qualified the character is. That female leader? Isn't in her position because she's a woman and a more-qualified male character got shunted out because he's a dude. That "more qualified male character" never existed. And the female leader is unquestionably qualified for the position because that's how the author created her. She's the most qualified person for that position (unless the point of the story is that she isn't, obviously). No talented male candidates got denied the position because we chose a woman because, you know, they didn't exist in the first place.
So basically, your argument, when applied to a fictional world, boils down to:
"That basically means that woman are not good enough to earn their positions or compete against men"...
..."because despite the fact that you're creating these characters from scratch and deciding all of their talents and qualifications, the fact that they're women means they're inherently less qualified, and therefore got their position via affirmative action."
Which, you know, is balderdash.
|
|
When what is so female centric/prominent? There are plenty of male gods. And sorcerer bloodlines aren't gender specific.Because 30% women-70% men is equal.* Didn't you know? So our 50-50 split is female-centric. :-P
*I am snarking here about a study that showed that when the number of women onscreen in a movie goes above 30%, males in the audience are likely to perceive the scene as having more female characters than male ones.
This study had been mentioned twice now in this thread. I tried looking it up, but all I get are hits for the percentage of speaking roles women have in movies. Anyone have a link to the study?
Thanks!
|
|
@DM Beckett:
As Jessica Price notes...this simply isn't true.
@Joana:
Nor is this. There are more attractive young women in the APs than attractive young men. This is true, I checked. There aren't notably more women in positions of power, though. That's a very different matter indeed.
WotR has a Queen, it's true...but the Demon Lord numbers are tilted male (despite the Abyss being female-dominated), as are the military commanders you run into, and several other things.
CotCT has a Queen, true enough, but the Shoanti leaders shown are basically all male.
Reign of Winter has Rasputin, who's certainly in a position of power, and the main villains of two of the other books are male as well.
Serpent's Skull takes place in male-run areas a fair bit and half the authorities you run into are male.
Legacy of Fire's also pretty gender-balanced in terms of authority figures.
While I haven't played RotRL, Sandpoint's mayor may be female but the heads of a couple of the other noble houses are male, as is the Sherriff, and Magnimar's mayor is male as well.
And while I can't comment on details of the other APs, Skull and Shackles takes place in the Shackles (ruled by a man), as are Ustalav (Carrion Crown) and Osirion (Mummy's Mask), and Kingmaker takes place in an area with lots of different rulers, but I believe more of them male than female.
You're really not making a lot of sense here.
|
|
I'd be curious to see a little more analysis of prominent figures in APs/modules. Not just those that were potential romantic options, like the other thread.
Note: The last one also included people I definitely wouldn't call authority figures, just to be clear.
And if you want to do that thread, go for it, and I'll drop by and provide some analysis. But I'm not starting it, I did the last one. ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Im refraining from arguing because its been done a billion times already, but Im ferferring to more the setting having mostly women in desirable positions of power (not so much 50/50).
Likewise, with WW, they sort of threw open the doors for (RL) females to join the hobby by more highlighting that things are hard fir everyone, and playing off of the perceptions of weakness people have to use as advantages for the individual. Settings like PF, in my opinion, just take a lot of backwards steps kind of going the affirmitive action route, in game. That basically means that woman are not good enough to earn their positions or compete against men, but since you must have a certain percentage, its not best person for the individual whatever, but, at least to me, gives the impression of just wanting more females in the setting to say its equal or whatever. Cost is much more than its worth, again in my opinion, and not at all a service to anyone, male or female.
Or, let me put this in a better and (I think) more concise way.
That argument can be made in the real world because, due to prejudice against women and enforced gender roles, there are a lot less women in positions of power. Affirmative action and similar initiatives are an attempt to address that lack of balance by actively attempting to put women in better positions to wield equal power, which perhaps risks putting less qualified candidates in those positions because their gender is valued as a qualification that trumps those qualifications male competitors might have.
In our fictional world, where gender parity is the norm and there isn't a history of repression, restriction, and devaluation of women, why can't this argument:
" That basically means that woman are not good enough to earn their positions or compete against men, "
be made equally plausibly about male characters?
the average party of PCs is going to meet many more allied females in positions of importance than males.
Bolded for emphasis. Yeah, you fight a lot of bad men, but it feels like most of the good guys that actually personally meet the party and send them out on quests are female.
Maybe it's just the APs I've played or the fact that the game hasn't gotten past book 1 in most of them, but I've taken orders from Kendra Deverin, Cressida Kroft, Almah, Janiven, Ameiko, and Ionnia. I think the only male who's tried to order my PC around was Mr. Plugg.
I did a survey of our heads of state, famous wizards, etc. and it came out to under 20% female.
You're right. That is backward. It should be 50%.
Playing devil's advocate: It's possible there's a presentation bias. Although only 20% are women, those 20% have been more prominent in APs/modules etc and thus the setting appears more tilted towards women than it actually is.
For example, Irrisen is female dominated and has been featured heavily in a recent AP. The Land of the Linnorm Kings is male dominated, but hasn't had as much exposure. Even if the two balance out in the setting, they don't in published material.
It's possible, but I'm betting on the study you mentioned.
Sure, that's possible. I did an analysis of heads of state, powerful wizards, etc. rather than heads of state, powerful wizards, etc. featured in recent APs.
Hard to say -- the APs I've actually played through (where you have more time to reflect on this than when you're just reading them in editing) were Rise of the Runelords and Kingmaker, both of which seemed to have a lot more male authority figures than female ones, but they're also older.
|
|
the average party of PCs is going to meet many more allied females in positions of importance than males.Bolded for emphasis. Yeah, you fight a lot of bad men, but it feels like most of the good guys that actually personally meet the party and send them out on quests are female.
Maybe it's just the APs I've played or the fact that the game hasn't gotten past book 1 in most of them, but I've taken orders from Kendra Deverin, Cressida Kroft, Almah, Janiven, Ameiko, and Ionnia. I think the only male who's tried to order my PC around was Mr. Plugg.
Hmmm...that might be statistically valid for the first books of the APs. I'm pretty positive it's not for the whole of them.
And if you're talking allied...mentioning the rulers of Cheliax, Irrisen, or Korvosa doesn't make a lot of sense. Those aren't allies for most PC groups in the conventional sense of the term.
And if you're talking allied...mentioning the rulers of Cheliax, Irrisen, or Korvosa doesn't make a lot of sense. Those aren't allies for most PC groups in the conventional sense of the term.
True. It was kind of two points mashed together. :)
1) Most of the quest-giving NPCs my PCs have personally encountered in the APs I've played have been female; and
2) Most of the most "famous" (out of game) leaders of Golarion are female. I mean, everyone knows who's queen of Korvosa and Cheliax because they've been highlighted as important to the setting. I know Osirion has a Ruby Prince, but I haven't been aware of any opportunity for a party to meet him. (This may change with Mummy's Mask; I couldn't have told you who the queen of Mendev was before Wrath of the Righteous.)
EDIT: I have not played Kingmaker but have heard that it's more male-NPC-heavy.
|
Have to throw in a correction on Korvosa:
Edit-Gah, just saw that "ruler" was specified. Sorry.
|
|
And if you're talking allied...mentioning the rulers of Cheliax, Irrisen, or Korvosa doesn't make a lot of sense. Those aren't allies for most PC groups in the conventional sense of the term.True. It was kind of two points mashed together. :)
1) Most of the quest-giving NPCs my PCs have personally encountered in the APs I've played have been female; and
2) Most of the most "famous" (out of game) leaders of Golarion are female. I mean, everyone knows who's queen of Korvosa and Cheliax because they've been highlighted as important to the setting. I know Osirion has a Ruby Prince, but I haven't been aware of any opportunity for a party to meet him. (This may change with Mummy's Mask; I couldn't have told you who the queen of Mendev was before Wrath of the Righteous.)
EDIT: I have not played Kingmaker but have heard that it's more male-NPC-heavy.
1. In my experience, for whatever reason, is relatively common in part 1 of APs, but not necessarily in later parts. I know Legacy of Fire, and CotCT basically begin in this fashion, and I believe Shattered Star and RotRL can be characterized that way, too...but I don't think any of the others do. Which isn't actually too many.
The problem seems more to be that I can't think of any that start with men as the primary quest giver/employer. Maybe Kingmaker or Carrion Crown? Still, there's an imbalance in chapter 1, there. Not nearly as much in later chapters, though (CotCT really evens out by the end, and LoF pretty much does too). So...that's kind of a niche problem, and I suspect related to the love interest problem discussed elsewhere.
2. I really do think you've just happened to run into the APs in female ruled areas as Carrion Crown, Legacy of Fire, Skull and Shackles, Serpent's Skull, and Mummy's Mask don't fall under that umbrella at all. Nor does the upcoming Iron Gods. That's 6 out of 15 right there, and it's not counting the ones where you travel around a bunch and thus wind up under rulers of different genders (Kingmaker, Shattered Star, Rise of the Rune Lords, Jade Regent, and even debatably Reign of Winter, but that last one's iffy, so we'll call it 4), leaving only five (precisely one third) that take place primarily in female ruled places (Second Darkness, Council of Thieves, Curse of the Crimson Throne, Reign of Winter - since I'm counting it here, and Wrath of the Righteous).
Now, to be fair, Katapesh (and thus Legacy of Fire) isn't ruled by men or women per se (the Pactmasters are weirder than that)...but that still leaves rough gender parity in terms of rulers. Now, two of the male ruled ones are the ones just starting and upcoming, respectively, but two of the female ruled ones are the two most recent...so that actually balances out pretty well, IMO.
@Renegadesheperd:
A lot of that was due to the absurd infant mortality rates in those times, though. An issue that is pretty readily fixed by magic.
Don't take this as me being contrary, but magic fixes everything(since it is magic after all) when it is readily available. I guess it just depends on your perception of how readily it is available in your Golarion.
My personal take is more in line with the common people not really having easy access to magic unless they were born gifted with it themselves. Sure there are still the local clergy that is possibly well meaning enough to try to take care of its nearby population, but even still, how much can they do?
That is at least my take on it, sorry for the off topic discussion!
|
|
Don't take this as me being contrary, but magic fixes everything(since it is magic after all) when it is readily available. I guess it just depends on your perception of how readily it is available in your Golarion.
My personal take is more in line with the common people not really having easy access to magic unless they were born gifted with it themselves. Sure there are still the local clergy that is possibly well meaning enough to try to take care of its nearby population, but even still, how much can they do?
By the rules, every village of above 60 people has Remove Disease available. Assuming a Good aligned priest or God they can fix infant mortality rates casually, given that basically all the diseases responsible take more than a day to kill. And it is even beneficial for the Lord of the area to pay them to do so since it vastly improves his populace's numbers, morale, and loyalty, giving even Neutral or Evil priests sound reason to do this.
It's not much good against epidemics, but it's a very solid option on things like this.
Now, if you don't want to use the settlement rules and implications in your setting, that's cool, but Golarion does use them for the most part.
Don't take this as me being contrary, but magic fixes everything(since it is magic after all) when it is readily available. I guess it just depends on your perception of how readily it is available in your Golarion.
My personal take is more in line with the common people not really having easy access to magic unless they were born gifted with it themselves. Sure there are still the local clergy that is possibly well meaning enough to try to take care of its nearby population, but even still, how much can they do?
By the rules, every village of above 60 people has Remove Disease available. Assuming a Good aligned priest or God they can fix infant mortality rates casually, given that basically all the diseases responsible take more than a day to kill. And it is even beneficial for the Lord of the area to pay them to do so since it vastly improves his populace's numbers, morale, and loyalty, giving even Neutral or Evil priests sound reason to do this.
It's not much good against epidemics, but it's a very solid option on things like this.
Now, if you don't want to use the settlement rules and implications in your setting, that's cool, but Golarion does use them for the most part.
If you really want to look at the rules that closely. Most of your unskilled populace will not be skilled enough to make money to afford the spell casting services of said priest as well as afford to feed themselves and their families while maintaining some form of room and board. Nothing says good aligned priest offer their services for free. If you want to ignore that, it's also cool.
That was a bit snarky on my part, and I'm sorry for that, but I understand where you are coming from. I just see a large disconnect between these parts of the 'rules' and the setting as presented in the biographies of NPC's, Fiction, and source books throughout the Paizo line.
|
|
Don't take this as me being contrary, but magic fixes everything(since it is magic after all) when it is readily available. I guess it just depends on your perception of how readily it is available in your Golarion.
My personal take is more in line with the common people not really having easy access to magic unless they were born gifted with it themselves. Sure there are still the local clergy that is possibly well meaning enough to try to take care of its nearby population, but even still, how much can they do?
By the rules, every village of above 60 people has Remove Disease available. Assuming a Good aligned priest or God they can fix infant mortality rates casually, given that basically all the diseases responsible take more than a day to kill. And it is even beneficial for the Lord of the area to pay them to do so since it vastly improves his populace's numbers, morale, and loyalty, giving even Neutral or Evil priests sound reason to do this.
It's not much good against epidemics, but it's a very solid option on things like this.
Now, if you don't want to use the settlement rules and implications in your setting, that's cool, but Golarion does use them for the most part.
If you really want to look at the rules that closely. Most of your unskilled populace will not be skilled enough to make money to afford the spell casting services of said priest as well as afford to feed themselves and their families while maintaining some form of room and board. Nothing says good aligned priest offer their services for free. If you want to ignore that, it's also cool.
That was a bit snarky on my part, and I'm sorry for that, but I understand where you are coming from. I just see a large disconnect between these parts of the 'rules' and the setting as presented in the biographies of NPC's, Fiction, and source books throughout the Paizo line.
The way I'd figure it is that good clergy wouldn't charge for magics the community depended upon. Looking at how the church of Abadar operates could serve as a good counterpoint, not just to good faiths that would give what they could freely to those in need but also evil ones that would spare some aid to drum up good PR.