No one's saying it isn't good to have Eowyn. But the inclusion of Eowyn doesn't make Tolkien progressive.
Oh, I'll even give him "progressive," but hardly "amazing."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one's saying it isn't good to have Eowyn. But the inclusion of Eowyn doesn't make Tolkien progressive.
In 2014, absolutely. She'd be seen as a half-assed attempt at feminism and gender-equality. They changed her role and her ending in the movie pretty much because of this (and time constraints I suppose.) I only argue that she's pretty good for 1955 when women were by-and-large expected to be housewives and mothers. She ain't exactly June Cleaver.
What I don't understand about this whole argument is why do people need to go to historical or literary sources for inspiration or credibility as to how to address this issue in their games? All writing is period, so it's going to be influenced by the standards of their day.
Well, ultimately, because high fantasy is a literary genre, and most of the source material is either directly from literature or only a few steps from literature. And the literature itself is closely tied with the history of a specific region of the world.
And fidelity to the high fantasy genre is one of the things that gives Pathfinder its niche, which is important both to the publishers as well as to the audience. If you think that Pathfinder-in-Space would sell nearly as well or as consistently, you have Paizo's official blessing (via the OGL) to write that up, publish it, and make yourself a fortune beyond the dreams of avarice. But based on how well sci-fi games don't sell, I wouldn't expect you to be able to pull it off.
And the same applies to any other genre. If you want to do Pathfinder-Noir, or Pathfinder-on-the-Fields-of-Flanders, or Pathfinder-Quartermain-in-Darkest-Africa, or Pathfinder-and-Juliet, or Brideshead-RePathfinderized, or The-Hunt-For-Red-Pathfinder, you have the same blessing and the same problem.
If you want to do Pathfinder-Noir, or Pathfinder-on-the-Fields-of-Flanders, or Pathfinder-Quartermain-in-Darkest-Africa, or Pathfinder-and-Juliet, or Brideshead-RePathfinderized, or The-Hunt-For-Red-Pathfinder, you have the same blessing and the same problem.
"Brideshead-RePathfinderized" For some reason that really makes me giggle.
"Brideshead-RePathfinderized" For some reason that really makes me giggle.If you want to do Pathfinder-Noir, or Pathfinder-on-the-Fields-of-Flanders, or Pathfinder-Quartermain-in-Darkest-Africa, or Pathfinder-and-Juliet, or Brideshead-RePathfinderized, or The-Hunt-For-Red-Pathfinder, you have the same blessing and the same problem.
I think that Lord Sebastian Flyte would make a marvelous Drunken Master.
I think that Lord Sebastian Flyte would make a marvelous Drunken Master."Brideshead-RePathfinderized" For some reason that really makes me giggle.If you want to do Pathfinder-Noir, or Pathfinder-on-the-Fields-of-Flanders, or Pathfinder-Quartermain-in-Darkest-Africa, or Pathfinder-and-Juliet, or Brideshead-RePathfinderized, or The-Hunt-For-Red-Pathfinder, you have the same blessing and the same problem.
I would play the holy loving bejeesus out of a Brideshead-RePathfinderized AP, but it would have to be based on the BBC miniseries rather than the 2008 movie. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The society of Middle Earth is archaic and meant to evoke the mythical past. Using "Man" to mean human is fitting in the setting.Yes, but "the mythical past" is also highly sexist, as Tolkien was well aware. As you point out, he was born in 1892, meaning that within his lifetime married women were granted the right to control their own property, to enter the professions, to stand for Parliament, and to vote.
I don't see any indications that women had any of these rights, even in the ostensibly more modern Shire. Just as a simple example, do we have any suggestion that any member of the Shirriffs was a female? Do we even have a suggestion of female leadership, such as a Mistress of Brandy Hall? (I note in passing that Peregrin apparently had three older sisters who were passed over for the position of Thain.)
"Ostensibly more modern?" The whole point is not it isn't modern. It's looking towards the past. Just because women had more rights in his time does not mean that they were equal or that sexism wasn't still around. It didn't even make causal sexism a minority opinion.
A fantasy writer today must contend with feminism's much larger cultural stake today. Readers will expect more female characters who do things. Even the 2000s movie adaptation gave Arwen a bigger role partially because they wanted more women on screen. (If you're more cynical, it's because they wanted to get their money's worth out of Liv Tyler.)
This wasn't true of Tolkien's era. The mere fact that he had Eowyn is amazing. Many other authors of his day wouldn't have had a woman who not only held her own in a fight but beat a powerful bad guy that none the male heroes could (though Merry helped too but he's not exactly Tolkien's society's definition of a suitable man.) Does this make Tolkien a feminist or even not a sexist? No. But it's better than many of his contemporaries.
As a whole, I do prefer Golarion to Middle Earth and gender...
Stop me if I'm putting words in your mouth here, but it kinda looks like the defense you're making here is roughly, "while feminism was a thing while Tolkien was writing, there was a historical nature to his stories, clearly setting them before the feminist movement."
The problem with that though, is that the basic premise of feminism is, put really bluntly, "Oh hey! Turns out women are actually people, not just talking pets who produce and care for children! We really should think of and treat them as such!"
So sure, if you're working with a historical setting (or, a fictional setting closely modeled after a period of history), it's totally valid not to go granting all the women equal rights within the story, and relegate them to the whole wife/mother/lowly servant box, if not full on treating them as some dude's property. However, as you, the author of this story, do live in a world where someone has, presumably, explained this whole "women are people too" notion, you are obligated to acknowledge that the lack of rights for women in both the story you are writing, and the historical period you're basing it on, represented an absolutely terrible, unfair, oppressive system, and that even at the time, this wasn't really something women were OK with, because it's not like they just magically became people some time around the early 1900s, that's just when there was a push to start acknowledging it.
So if Tolkien had been properly on board the feminism train, we'd probably still have Eowyn as the only woman on the battlefield, sure, but we'd have a lot of other women showing up in the story in general, and likely some commentary about how they're frustrated being stuck at home and not really able to have a proper impact on things. Not to the same degree we get in A Song of Ice and Fire, because that series has a huge axe to grind about overly romanticizing these sorts of societies, and pointing out the flaws and injustices is thus way more important there, but still.
And true, Tolkien does seem a lot more neutral with regards to feminism than actively opposed, so it's not really something to vilify him over, but if you want to compare him to his peers, C.S. Lewis, regardless of all his other issues, at least actively went out and wrote his big fantasy series with a consistent 50/50 gender split amongst the protagonists. There's still some weird double standards in there (Really Santa? Peter and Edmund get swords, but all Susan gets is a horn to call for help with?) but the effort is being made.
Oh, and bringing things back on topic a bit, a major justification for sexism in the real world comes from citations of passages from various religious texts, which generally reinforce the hell out of all sorts of societal norms, so, yeah, just having the pantheon it does goes pretty astoundingly far towards justifying equality in Golarion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More importantly, Susan can't enter the promised land because she was just way too into lipstick and stockings, which, not to say that Tolkien was a paragon of gender equity, was tons more sexist than anything Tolkien ever wrote.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
More importantly, Susan can't enter the promised land because she was just way too into lipstick and stockings, which, not to say that Tolkien was a paragon of gender equity, was tons more sexist than anything Tolkien ever wrote.
I disagree. Lipstick and stockings here aren't sexist, just shorthand for vanity (and possibly lust), both of which are well-understood to be sins that will keep you from Heaven.
I'd be surprised to see any 21 year old, female or male, who wasn't into vanity and sex. I'm more surprised to see that Peter Pevensie, who is 22 years old, is not, and manages to retain enough 'faith' to return to Narnia, but that's rather the point, and one of the things that makes Peter a heroic figure in the way that one of his sisters is not.
Stop me if I'm putting words in your mouth here, but it kinda looks like the defense you're making here is roughly, "while feminism was a thing while Tolkien was writing, there was a historical nature to his stories, clearly setting them before the feminist movement."
The problem with that though, is that the basic premise of feminism is, put really bluntly, "Oh hey! Turns out women are actually people, not just talking pets who produce and care for children! We really should think of and treat them as such!"
So sure, if you're working with a historical setting (or, a fictional setting closely modeled after a period of history), it's totally valid not to go granting all the women equal rights within the story, and relegate them to the whole wife/mother/lowly servant box, if not full on treating them as some dude's property. However, as you, the author of this story, do live in a world where someone has, presumably, explained this whole "women are people too" notion, you are obligated to acknowledge that the lack of rights for women in both the story you are writing, and the historical period you're basing it on, represented an absolutely terrible, unfair, oppressive system, and that even at the time, this wasn't really something women were OK with, because it's not like they just magically became people some time around the early 1900s, that's just when there was a push to start acknowledging it.
So if Tolkien had been properly on board the feminism train, we'd probably still have Eowyn as the only woman on the battlefield, sure, but we'd have a lot of other women showing up in the story in general, and likely some commentary about how they're frustrated being stuck at home and not really able to have a proper impact on things. Not to the same degree we get in A Song of Ice and Fire, because that series has a huge axe to grind about overly romanticizing these sorts of societies, and pointing out the flaws and injustices is thus way more important there, but still.
And true, Tolkien does seem a lot more neutral with regards to feminism than actively opposed, so it's not really something to vilify him over, but if you want to compare him to his peers, C.S. Lewis, regardless of all his other issues, at least actively went out and wrote his big fantasy series with a consistent 50/50 gender split amongst the protagonists. There's still some weird double standards in there (Really Santa? Peter and Edmund get swords, but all Susan gets is a horn to call for help with?) but the effort is being made.
Oh, and bringing things back on topic a bit, a major justification for sexism in the real world comes from citations of passages from various religious texts, which generally reinforce the hell out of all sorts of societal norms, so, yeah, just having the pantheon it does goes pretty astoundingly far towards justifying equality in Golarion.
You are putting words into my mouth. Tolkien would have lived through first-wave feminism whose main goals were the abolishment of slavery, universal female suffrage, and prohibition. Second-wave feminism started which focus on the place and role of women in society and more specifically the workplace started after LotR was published. He died before Third-wave feminism. So in a sense Feminism was not a "thing" while he was writing. First-wave feminism didn't concern itself as much with how women were represented in fiction so the fact that he had Eowyn do what she did is probably not due to Feminism. I will agree that he was more neutral to the idea of women being more important in fiction than actively for it or opposed to it.
More importantly, Susan can't enter the promised land because she was just way too into lipstick and stockings, which, not to say that Tolkien was a paragon of gender equity, was tons more sexist than anything Tolkien ever wrote.I disagree. Lipstick and stockings here aren't sexist, just shorthand for vanity (and possibly lust), both of which are well-understood to be sins that will keep you from Heaven.
I'd be surprised to see any 21 year old, female or male, who wasn't into vanity and sex. I'm more surprised to see that Peter Pevensie, who is 22 years old, is not, and manages to retain enough 'faith' to return to Narnia, but that's rather the point, and one of the things that makes Peter a heroic figure in the way that one of his sisters is not.
It's not like Lewis described her as being way too into functional clothing and driving cars, though, is it?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More importantly, Susan can't enter the promised land because she was just way too into lipstick and stockings, which, not to say that Tolkien was a paragon of gender equity, was tons more sexist than anything Tolkien ever wrote.
In fairness to Louis, what he seemed to be aiming for was that she wasn't able to enter the promised land because she was 'too into material things' with those simply being the things she was personally into.
The implications are potentially really bad, I grant, but almost certainly unintentional.
Also...
And true, Tolkien does seem a lot more neutral with regards to feminism than actively opposed, so it's not really something to vilify him over, but if you want to compare him to his peers, C.S. Lewis, regardless of all his other issues, at least actively went out and wrote his big fantasy series with a consistent 50/50 gender split amongst the protagonists. There's still some weird double standards in there (Really Santa? Peter and Edmund get swords, but all Susan gets is a horn to call for help with?) but the effort is being made.
Susan got a bow, actually. And even Lucy got a dagger. While Edmund got nothing because he was off being a traitor*. Only Peter (the oldest and largest of them, in addition to being male) got a sword. For the record.
*Something that could easily be seen as equally sexist to the Susan thing if in a different cultural milieu...indeed, I believe all the traitors in the Chronicles of Narnia are male, now that I think on it. There are female villains, but no traitors. Huh. That's interesting.
You don't get to read gender equality into the unnamed masses. That's as much bias as anything else.
Why? Because you say so?
All of the evidence in Tolkien says that women can be warriors. None says that women can't be warriors. Why can you not assume that most of the warriors are women?
If I read LOTR and assume that most of the armies are female there is nothing in the text that says otherwise. It is totally up to me.
For you to say that reading gender equality into gender less characters is some sort of bias in and of itself is a pretty sad statement and a failure of logic. If you assume that most of the soldiers are male that is your own personal problem/viewpoint.
More importantly, Susan can't enter the promised land because she was just way too into lipstick and stockings, which, not to say that Tolkien was a paragon of gender equity, was tons more sexist than anything Tolkien ever wrote.In fairness to Louis, what he seemed to be aiming for was that she wasn't able to enter the promised land because she was 'too into material things' with those simply being the things she was personally into.
The implications are potentially really bad, I grant, but almost certainly unintentional.
*Snip*
I think the unintentional nonsense is the junk we have to look out for, particularly when it comes to the creative arts. Nothing else that Lewis wrote on the page was unintentional; you read every single sentence he wrote in that order because that's the order he wrote it in. I guess I'm saying all the decisions he made as an author were probably pretty informed.
I also guess that if we're ever really going to talk about gender equality in fantasy worlds, we'll have to introduce some writing done post 1960. Anyone here like Tanith Lee?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To repeat my followup post: Just to follow up on this with a specific bit I remembered: When Imrahil finds Eowyn near death on the battlefield he says
You don't get to read gender equality into the unnamed masses. That's as much bias as anything else.Why? Because you say so?
All of the evidence in Tolkien says that women can be warriors. None says that women can't be warriors. Why can you not assume that most of the warriors are women?
If I read LOTR and assume that most of the armies are female there is nothing in the text that says otherwise. It is totally up to me.
For you to say that reading gender equality into gender less characters is some sort of bias in and of itself is a pretty sad statement and a failure of logic. If you assume that most of the soldiers are male that is your own personal problem/viewpoint.
Surely, here is a woman?...Have even women of the Rohirrim come to war in our need?He notes her gender and is surprised. Nor is the answer: "Yeah, about 1/3 of our army is female. What are you, sexist?", but "Nay, one only."
So. Hard confirmation that Rohan's army was entirely male. Unless we want to posit other disguised women, which doesn't really help the argument. And Imrahil's surprise suggests that Gondor's is the same way.
More generally, I am assuming that the unnamed and undescribed soldiers follow the pattern of the described soldiers, which is 100% male. (Or disguised as male.) You're assuming that the unknown ones do not follow the pattern of the known ones. You're free to do so, of course. But it's more of a stretch.
Actually, I am assuming that based on the fact there is a group called "The shieldmaidens of Rohan" that there are in fact shieldmaidens of Rohan. The fact that one soldier of Gondor is surprised to see one does not mean they don't exist.
And my point is that Tolkien went out of his way to add such a concept to his world. He could have easily just had a princess go to war disguised as a man a la an unusual joan of arc type character. But he didn't. He describes her as part of a group of female warriors that have existed in Rohan for a long time. She is trained. She knows how to fight. She is an excellent warrior. She is not an anomaly in Rohan. Perhaps that is not the case in Gondor but no one is surprised by her abilities/actions in Rohan.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
james jacobs said Holomog is a Good matriarchal society.
A @#$%ing awesome Good matriarchal society. Mwangi amazonian dino-rider warrior culture standing against a lizardfolk equivalent AND Geb at the same time? Badass.
They're tied with Dehrukani at the top of my "parts of South Garund I want to know more about NOW" list. :D
The lashunta are very much a great example of a good-aligned matriarchy.The Lashunta from Golarion could fit the definition. We're told the race is matriarchal, and the race as a group is Good, so their society probably would be too. We don't have much to go on about specific societies, tough, only Mr. Jacob's word. I don't know if he used the sociological definition of "matriarchy".
Great! I hope we see a more detailed description of their society soon.
Can you give me an example of a Golarion (Pathfinder Campaign Setting, really, since the Lashunta are technically from Castrovel and such) good-aligned Patriarchy? That's all I want out of this whole thing, honest.
No one's saying it isn't good to have Eowyn. But the inclusion of Eowyn doesn't make Tolkien progressive.In 2014, absolutely. She'd be seen as a half-assed attempt at feminism and gender-equality. They changed her role and her ending in the movie pretty much because of this (and time constraints I suppose.) I only argue that she's pretty good for 1955 when women were by-and-large expected to be housewives and mothers. She ain't exactly June Cleaver.
And the point of the post where I listed examples of pre-Tolkien hero-women was that even for his time, he wasn't anything close to progressive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Beren and Lúthien....
Dude in distress, rescued by girlfriend, join forces work as a team, do great things... He dies, she tells the gods they suck gets boyfriend back.
Central core of the Tolkienverse.
Beren and Lúthien....
Dude in distress, rescued by girlfriend, join forces work as a team, do great things... He dies, she tells the gods they suck gets boyfriend back.
Central core of the Tolkienverse.
Not only central core - Beren was Tolkien's self-insert, and Lúthien was based on his wife Edith.
When you stop to think that Lúthien was the only (mortal) person that actually managed to reach the heart of the Enemy's fortress and beat him at his own game to rescue her lover, it gets even more awesome.
Of course, she does this by guile, trickery and enchantment, traditional "female" means - but the men who tried to fight Morgoth directly tended to die within the hour without inflicting any real damage, so is that really a bad thing?
...
GAH, don't drag me back into this, Dwarf!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the unintentional nonsense is the junk we have to look out for, particularly when it comes to the creative arts. Nothing else that Lewis wrote on the page was unintentional; you read every single sentence he wrote in that order because that's the order he wrote it in. I guess I'm saying all the decisions he made as an author were probably pretty informed.
I'm not saying the words were not placed there intentionally, I'm saying the potential sexist implication was not necessarily one that even occurred to Lewis.
I suspect he made the choice of who to not have be there for material things than asked himself what would Susan be interested in materially speaking (what was chosen was pretty consistent with her previous characterization, if she were to become enamored of the material world)...and came to a conclusion. He probably never even considered that some people might think he was condemning those particular things as inherently sinful or saying all women were interested in them (for the second part, I'm not even sure that's a reasonable conclusion to come to given Lucy's interests not including those). Or even saying that women were more likely to succumb to the temptation of the material than men (that last is disproved fairly thoroughly by Edmund and Turkish Delight). None of those implications appear like something that was meant.
Authors aren't perfect and rarely do they think through every possible interpretation of what they write. Indeed, they often don't think through some obvious ones simply because they knew what they meant and miss how other people might interpret it without that knowledge. Good editors help with this...and I suspect if Lewis were writing today one might've mentioned this issue to him...but at the time it's likely the editors didn't even notice.
I also guess that if we're ever really going to talk about gender equality in fantasy worlds, we'll have to introduce some writing done post 1960. Anyone here like Tanith Lee?
Yeah, more recent works are likely a good idea.
|
|
So multiple pages about tolkien is ok but bringing up Piazo products doing gender inequality the other direction is a no no?
I suspect it has to do with your tone.
Also, inspired by the now-missing post, I'm gonna throw out The Five Kings Mountains as a fairly patriarchal and Good aligned nation on Golarion (to counteract the Lashunta and Holomog going the other way). They have a few female leaders...but no female monarchs...and a fair amount of Dwarven stuff (including their pantheon) seems male-dominated, That says patriarchy to me.
Anyone have any evidence contradicting that?
|
So multiple pages about tolkien is ok but bringing up Piazo products doing gender inequality the other direction is a no no?I suspect it has to do with your tone.
Also, inspired by the now-missing post, I'm gonna throw out The Five Kings Mountains as a fairly patriarchal and Good aligned nation on Golarion (to counteract the Lashunta and Holomog going the other way). They have a few female leaders...but no female monarchs...and a fair amount of Dwarven stuff (including their pantheon) seems male-dominated, That says patriarchy to me.
Anyone have any evidence contradicting that?
I suspect it has to do with not saying the right opinion.
But as i said before it os not just a numbers game of how many are patriarchal and matriarchal but also of their quality. Lashunta are female dominate, pretty and regal with squat ugly hairy males with an inferior role and statistical differences. Elves are said to be equal but come off as female dominate (often males seem effeminate), again pretty and regal. Dwarves are the only good patriarchy, but like orcs and other evil male dominate are ugly and brutish.
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The lashunta are very much a great example of a good-aligned matriarchy.The Lashunta from Golarion could fit the definition. We're told the race is matriarchal, and the race as a group is Good, so their society probably would be too. We don't have much to go on about specific societies, tough, only Mr. Jacob's word. I don't know if he used the sociological definition of "matriarchy".
Great! I hope we see a more detailed description of their society soon.
Can you give me an example of a Golarion (Pathfinder Campaign Setting, really, since the Lashunta are technically from Castrovel and such) good-aligned Patriarchy? That's all I want out of this whole thing, honest.
Apart from several dwarven organizations, the one that most immediately comes to mind is probably Nirmathas, although gender roles there are pretty diverse.
The church of Erastil is sort of a good patriarchy (although we've softened the parts where that patriarchal organization went too far, it's still primarily a patriarchal organization overall).
There's not really an obvious nomination for the role though. But that's more because we tend to skew toward neutral or evil groups in Golarion so as to make it more adventure-filled.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect it has to do with not saying the right opinion.
Change your tone and you can find out. For Science!
But as i said before it os not just a numbers game of how many are patriarchal and matriarchal but also of their quality. Lashunta are female dominate, pretty and regal with squat ugly hairy males with an inferior role and statistical differences. Elves are said to be equal but come off as female dominate (often males seem effeminate), again pretty and regal. Dwarves are the only good patriarchy, but like orcs and other evil male dominate are ugly and brutish.
Ah. So male dominated societies need to be pretty, now. And conventionally masculine. Simultaneously. Way to move the goal posts there.
Additionally, Gnolls and Demons are good examples of female dominated societies that are not 'pretty' on the whole...which sorta messes with your whole theory.
|
|
I suspect it has to do with not saying the right opinion.Change your tone and you can find out. For Science!
But as i said before it os not just a numbers game of how many are patriarchal and matriarchal but also of their quality. Lashunta are female dominate, pretty and regal with squat ugly hairy males with an inferior role and statistical differences. Elves are said to be equal but come off as female dominate (often males seem effeminate), again pretty and regal. Dwarves are the only good patriarchy, but like orcs and other evil male dominate are ugly and brutish.Ah. So male dominated societies need to be pretty, now. And conventionally masculine. Simultaneously. Way to move the goal posts there.
Additionally, Gnolls and Demons are good examples of female dominated societies that are not 'pretty' on the whole...which sorta messes with your whole theory.
I would love to see non traditional male roles, not traditionally masculine necessarily. One thing i have noticed in the "strong female character" is that they are all attractive, that these fantasy races that are female dominate are almost always described as attractive. Yes we still get the evil is ugly trope out of a couple of them but overall still pretty females are the rule. Male dominate are almost exclusivly stereotype brute male roles and ugly. I would just like to see more variance is all. If more options and variety are good for female characters and gamers is not the same true for males?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing i have noticed in the "strong female character" is that they are all attractive, that these fantasy races that are female dominate are almost always described as attractive. Yes we still get the evil is ugly trope out of a couple of them but overall still pretty females are the rule. Male dominate are almost exclusivly stereotype brute male roles and ugly. I would just like to see more variance is all. If more options and variety are good for female characters and gamers is not the same true for males?
Do you have any actual examples here? There is, to my knowledge, one good leaning, generally attractive, matriarchal society in the setting, which is specifically a shout out to old pulp era planetary romance stories. That's not really a trend.
Also I'd kinda like to know where you're coming from with this "dwarves are ugly and brutish" bit. Seems more like you just don't like beards or something and you're doing a lot of projecting from there.
Now, if you meant to say there's a weird trend in illustrations of good women in positions of authority being presented as very traditionally attractive, there you totally have a point, but that's less an issue with the setting and more an issue of old habits dying hard with the artists being commissioned to illustrate everyone.
|
|
One thing i have noticed in the "strong female character" is that they are all attractive, that these fantasy races that are female dominate are almost always described as attractive. Yes we still get the evil is ugly trope out of a couple of them but overall still pretty females are the rule. Male dominate are almost exclusivly stereotype brute male roles and ugly. I would just like to see more variance is all. If more options and variety are good for female characters and gamers is not the same true for males?Do you have any actual examples here? There is, to my knowledge, one good leaning, generally attractive, matriarchal society in the setting, which is specifically a shout out to old pulp era planetary romance stories. That's not really a trend.
Also I'd kinda like to know where you're coming from with this "dwarves are ugly and brutish" bit. Seems more like you just don't like beards or something and you're doing a lot of projecting from there.
Now, if you meant to say there's a weird trend in illustrations of good women in positions of authority being presented as very traditionally attractive, there you totally have a point, but that's less an issue with the setting and more an issue of old habits dying hard with the artists being commissioned to illustrate everyone.
ot just in golarion/pathfinder but in all fiction it seems to be a trend
Dwarves are short, broad (often illustrated to look fat) hairy, typical things associated as ugly. They are often portrayed as antisocial, bad manner, etc. they have a charisma penalty. They are portrayed as violent and warlike unlike the more feminine elves that are peaceful despite racial combat training in most settings. Frankly i love beards and kinda miss bearded dwarven women
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Storm trooper shooting is incredibly precise: Every single one of them shoots exactly three feet to the left.
Its just not very accurate.
mumbles mumbles "jedi truth"
I'd just like to point out that Boba Fett, whom a legion of fanboys has deemed the ultimate badass of the Star Wars universe, doesn't actually do anything on screen to show himself to be any more competent than the average Stormtrooper.
Unsurprising, since they're all just clones of the same dude.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Will i did ask james jacobs why are there no male gods of Beauty or love and he said it was not intentional but probability because of stereotypesThere was one.
he still screams sometimes
deep within
Anyone here like Tanith Lee?I've heard good things yet have somehow never read her work. Any particular recommendations?
The Birthgrave is certainly worth reading.
