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.
Actually, Tolkien had quite a bit of powerful women in his books, and it wasn't just limited to Eowyn.
However, you have to remember:
1. These were books that got published. They had to conform to what the publishers of the day would publish
2. These books were childrens stories and in some ways taken the form of myths and legends that one would tell them.
With that in mind, he still had quite a bit that went against the traditional woman at the household.
We have already obviously covered Eowyn, but she is not the most powerful women in the LotR by far.
That would go to Galadriel. One of the three ring bearers of the Elven rings, perhaps one of the most powerful Elves in Middle Earth, leader of her people, and beheld as one of the most glorious beings that the Fellowship encounters. She even saves Gandalf in a way, and is shown to be one who could possibly have defeated Sauron had she fell to temptation and taken the ring from Frodo.
However, Tolkiens true take was never published (and likely some of it was because he never felt it was truly finished and kept meddling with it, but part was also because the publishers wouldn't publish it). For more women that are far more active I suggest you look into the modified works found in the Silmarillion, or the revised works that have been put out that he worked on in much more depth and quality.
I wouldn't call him the most progressive of his time, but he did take the stance of the historical mythological woman (which in much of the folklore he studied had powerful women figures such as in Ring of the Nibellung (sp) and other tales) and as such his mythology for middle earth also has some very powerful women in it.
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.
Sweet, thank you.
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.
I think what Andrew R is getting at here is a perceived tendency of societies which are described as "peaceful", "nature-loving", "wise" and the like being presented, if not as matriarchies, at least as being ruled by women (Most Elven nation I can think of on Campaign Settings are ruled by Queens, for example); while societies which are described as "expansionist", "militaristic", "rigid" and just evil in general tend to be patriarchal, or represented by men, with the notable exceptions being the Drow and the Formians.
I think, if such a tendency exists, it's more due to unfortunate gender roles still being a thing in Western society (For example, we can still find people that claim that if the world was ruled by women we'd have no wars) than any specific intention from the Paizo staff. It's still a bit frustrating tough.
See my lifelong frustration with the lack of male Nymphs.
Dwarves are the only good patriarchy, but like orcs and other evil male dominate are ugly and brutish.
Personally, I'm not seeing dwarves/dwarven society as either ugly or brutish.
I think what Andrew R is getting at here is a perceived tendency of societies which are described as "peaceful", "nature-loving", "wise" and the like being presented, if not as matriarchies, at least as being ruled by women (Most Elven nation I can think of on Campaign Settings are ruled by Queens, for example); while societies which are described as "expansionist", "militaristic", "rigid" and just evil in general tend to be patriarchal, or represented by men, with the notable exceptions being the Drow and the Formians.
I think, if such a tendency exists, it's more due to unfortunate gender roles still being a thing in Western society (For example, we can still find people that claim that if the world was ruled by women we'd have no wars) than any specific intention from the Paizo staff. It's still a bit frustrating tough.
See my lifelong frustration with the lack of male Nymphs.
If we're looking at fantasy RPGs in general sure, but if we're specifically looking at Golarion, the big sprawling empire that colors most of the core setting via colonies and old wars and so forth is Chelliax, which is ruled by a woman. Irrisen is ruled by the daughters of Baba Yaga. One of the scarier rulers of the Land of the Linnorm Kings is a woman. There's a goddess of pirates...
As for male nymphs, satyrs generally fill that role, but you'd want to take that one up with the ancient Greeks.
I think what Andrew R is getting at here is a perceived tendency of societies which are described as "peaceful", "nature-loving", "wise" and the like being presented, if not as matriarchies, at least as being ruled by women (Most Elven nation I can think of on Campaign Settings are ruled by Queens, for example); while societies which are described as "expansionist", "militaristic", "rigid" and just evil in general tend to be patriarchal, or represented by men, with the notable exceptions being the Drow and the Formians.
I think, if such a tendency exists, it's more due to unfortunate gender roles still being a thing in Western society (For example, we can still find people that claim that if the world was ruled by women we'd have no wars) than any specific intention from the Paizo staff. It's still a bit frustrating tough.
See my lifelong frustration with the lack of male Nymphs.
If we're looking at fantasy RPGs in general sure, but if we're specifically looking at Golarion, the big sprawling empire that colors most of the core setting via colonies and old wars and so forth is Chelliax, which is ruled by a woman. Irrisen is ruled by the daughters of Baba Yaga. One of the scarier rulers of the Land of the Linnorm Kings is a woman. There's a goddess of pirates...
As for male nymphs, satyrs generally fill that role, but you'd want to take that one up with the ancient Greeks.
So, if Paizo decided that Paladins, Knights and Samurai would be male only, since it historically it has been so, would you tell people to take that one up with the Medieval Europe and Japan?
No. No you wouldn't.
So please, don't give me the "but mythology!" excuse. It's stupid, it's lazy, and it's profoundly irritating. We have no problems with ignoring and changing mythology when it suits us, but when it's something that doesn't bug us, personally, suddenly we have to be all according to the ancient texts.
Spare me.
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still holding out for some information and artwork of Dou-Bral as he originally was(and might someday move towards again). :)There shall be no Dou-Bral while Paizo lives!
Seriously though, that's as likely as Aroden's resurection.
Actually, it's not. More information on Dou-Bral may some day come along. It's not a topic we're not interested in exploring more. In fact, there area very few topics in that latter category. Aroden's death is pretty much the only one I can think of, in fact.
That shouldn't be taken as "Paizo is publishing a 'Guide to Dou-Bral'" anytime soon, if ever, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for male nymphs, satyrs generally fill that role, but you'd want to take that one up with the ancient Greeks.So, if Paizo decided that Paladins, Knights and Samurai would be male only, since it historically it has been so, would you tell people to take that one up with the Medieval Europe and Japan?
No. No you wouldn't.
So please, don't give me the "but mythology!" excuse. It's stupid, it's lazy, and it's profoundly irritating. We have no problems with ignoring and changing mythology when it suits us, but when it's something that doesn't bug us, personally, suddenly we have to be all according to the ancient texts.
Spare me.
Not sure where the anger is coming from here, but there's a few problems that come to mind with this comparison:
1- Your initial premise that various sorts of knights have "historically all been male" just plain isn't true, as was pointed out very very nicely earlier in this very thread.
2- You're comparing a type of creature to, depending how you're using the term, particular military titles, or just loosely defined character concepts. Generally speaking, Paizo makes it a point never restrict anything for strictly cultural reasons since the core books are written with the assumption that you are at least as likely to write all that up yourself as use their campaign setting (which of course wouldn't have that sort of restriction because they strive for gender equality with it).
3- Going by the original source material of greek mythology, seriously, there is plenty to suggest that the always-female nymphs and the always-male satyrs that are constantly dancing around the wilderness and sleeping with each other are really just the females and males of a single variety of creature, with some signifiant sexual dimorphism going on, in which case this is a bit like going "Hey! Why are there no female bulls?"
4- There is some inherent value in adapting creatures from various mythologies as faithfully as possible, and not adding new information along the way. Particularly when a major goal you have in filling out a big ol' book of mythological creatures is to present an unbiased catalog to flip through when trying to write a story based in a particular culture's mythology.
5- Really, I should have just started with this one. There actually isn't a single sentence on the page covering nymphs in the Pathfinder Bestiary which in any way indicates that all nymphs must be female. No restrictions on who their Blinding Beauty ability can effect either by the way.
6- Even if there was such language on that page, I'm not seeing how it could really be a problem. Nymphs aren't something you can play as, so if you're bringing one into a game, it's pretty safe to assume you're the GM. As the GM, you're the one making the world, so if you want there to be male nymphs in it, nobody is in any position to stop you.
Not sure where the anger is coming from here, but there's a few problems that come to mind with this comparison:
Anger? I'm not angry. I was merely irritated by the fact that there are still people who think that "but mythology" is an excuse when I point out that there are, canonically, little to no male fey (Or any other creature type, really) embodying beauty and seduction as a nymph does, and little to no male gods of love and beauty in published campaign settings.
If someone points out that Generic Campaign Setting A has no named female military commanders, everyone nods their heads and agree that this is an aspect of the game that needs to be fixed, and rightly so. If I point out that nearly all published Campaign Settings have no male god of love and beauty, and that's a bit frustrating, not to say problematic, I get the "but mythology!" excuse.
Obviously, as a GM, I have all the power to introduce such creatures in my campaign. I did so in my homebrew campaign setting, based on a creature from Brazilian folklore. However, taking this line of thought to it's logical conclusion, no publisher anywhere would have any duty to try to be diverse and inclusive - if a particular GM want something on their table, they can introduce it. I'm sure you can see the absurdity of this argument.
That's what's annoying about this subject. Every kind of b%@~&#!# excuse that wouldn't be acceptable if used to justify a lack of women rulers or influential POC is used to justify the maintenance of love/beauty as a traditional female role. Even if all I'm saying is "Hey, guys, isn't it strange we still directly associate 'Love and Beauty' with women instead of being gender-neutral as all the rest?" and not "Publish male nymphs NOW!".
Last, but not least - You can't say nymphs and satyrs were the same "variety of creature" in classical mythology unless you stretch the definition of "variety of creature" so much it could include pretty much every non-human character ever. Browse around theoi.com when you have the time. It's the best <edit> readily available </edit> source on Greek mythology I can think of.
If someone points out that Generic Campaign Setting A has no named female military commanders, everyone nods their heads and agree that this is an aspect of the game that needs to be fixed, and rightly so. If I point out that nearly all published Campaign Settings have no male god of love and beauty, and that's a bit frustrating, not to say problematic, I get the "but mythology!" excuse.absurdity of this argument.Beauty' with women instead of being gender-neutral as all the rest?" and not "Publish male nymphs NOW!"...
I agree with you somewhat about the gods but there's a difference between making some of maybe hundreds of military commanders female and choosing the gender of a single deity. If you want complete parity you wind up having a god and a goddess of every aspect, or they're all dual-natured or some such. I think it would get unmanageable.
I agree with you somewhat about the gods but there's a difference between making some of maybe hundreds of military commanders female and choosing the gender of a single deity. If you want complete parity you wind up having a god and a goddess of every aspect, or they're all dual-natured or some such. I think it would get unmanageable.
If someone points out that Generic Campaign Setting A has no named female military commanders, everyone nods their heads and agree that this is an aspect of the game that needs to be fixed, and rightly so. If I point out that nearly all published Campaign Settings have no male god of love and beauty, and that's a bit frustrating, not to say problematic, I get the "but mythology!" excuse.absurdity of this argument.Beauty' with women instead of being gender-neutral as all the rest?" and not "Publish male nymphs NOW!"...
I don't want a god and a goddess of every aspect. I just wish that we break this "Beauty and Love is a Female Portfolio" paradigm, the same way Iomedae and Sarenrae broke the tendency to make the chief deity of Good or Honor males.
Is that too much to ask for?
I agree with you somewhat about the gods but there's a difference between making some of maybe hundreds of military commanders female and choosing the gender of a single deity. If you want complete parity you wind up having a god and a goddess of every aspect, or they're all dual-natured or some such. I think it would get unmanageable.
If someone points out that Generic Campaign Setting A has no named female military commanders, everyone nods their heads and agree that this is an aspect of the game that needs to be fixed, and rightly so. If I point out that nearly all published Campaign Settings have no male god of love and beauty, and that's a bit frustrating, not to say problematic, I get the "but mythology!" excuse.absurdity of this argument.Beauty' with women instead of being gender-neutral as all the rest?" and not "Publish male nymphs NOW!"...I don't want a god and a goddess of every aspect. I just wish that we break this "Beauty and Love is a Female Portfolio" paradigm, the same way Iomedae and Sarenrae broke the tendency to make the chief deity of Good or Honor males.
Is that too much to ask for?
Making changes to already published deities? Probably.
Adding male empyreal lords related to Beauty and/or love? Maybe that's happening already. We don't know who's reading the thread: )It's still rather a separate issue to changing gender balance when designing NPCs or new monsters for the bestiaries though
I agree with you somewhat about the gods but there's a difference between making some of maybe hundreds of military commanders female and choosing the gender of a single deity. If you want complete parity you wind up having a god and a goddess of every aspect, or they're all dual-natured or some such. I think it would get unmanageable.
If someone points out that Generic Campaign Setting A has no named female military commanders, everyone nods their heads and agree that this is an aspect of the game that needs to be fixed, and rightly so. If I point out that nearly all published Campaign Settings have no male god of love and beauty, and that's a bit frustrating, not to say problematic, I get the "but mythology!" excuse.absurdity of this argument.Beauty' with women instead of being gender-neutral as all the rest?" and not "Publish male nymphs NOW!"...I don't want a god and a goddess of every aspect. I just wish that we break this "Beauty and Love is a Female Portfolio" paradigm, the same way Iomedae and Sarenrae broke the tendency to make the chief deity of Good or Honor males.
Is that too much to ask for?
Making changes to already published deities? Probably.
Adding male empyreal lords related to Beauty and/or love? Maybe that's happening already. We don't know who's reading the thread: )
It's still rather a separate issue to changing gender balance when designing NPCs or new monsters for the bestiaries though
I'd argue that it's not a separate issue. It all springs from the same f!#&ed up perceived gender roles.
I'd argue that it's not a separate issue. It all springs from the same f&#+ed up perceived gender roles.I agree with you somewhat about the gods but there's a difference between making some of maybe hundreds of military commanders female and choosing the gender of a single deity. If you want complete parity you wind up having a god and a goddess of every aspect, or they're all dual-natured or some such. I think it would get unmanageable.
If someone points out that Generic Campaign Setting A has no named female military commanders, everyone nods their heads and agree that this is an aspect of the game that needs to be fixed, and rightly so. If I point out that nearly all published Campaign Settings have no male god of love and beauty, and that's a bit frustrating, not to say problematic, I get the "but mythology!" excuse.absurdity of this argument.Beauty' with women instead of being gender-neutral as all the rest?" and not "Publish male nymphs NOW!"...I don't want a god and a goddess of every aspect. I just wish that we break this "Beauty and Love is a Female Portfolio" paradigm, the same way Iomedae and Sarenrae broke the tendency to make the chief deity of Good or Honor males.
Is that too much to ask for?
Making changes to already published deities? Probably.
Adding male empyreal lords related to Beauty and/or love? Maybe that's happening already. We don't know who's reading the thread: )
It's still rather a separate issue to changing gender balance when designing NPCs or new monsters for the bestiaries though
Probably. But, practically, I think what's more important is what the current status is, and what could be changed in future publications, rather than why the current status is what it is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lymnieris is the LG male Empyreal Lord of prostitution, chastity, and rites of passage, among other things.
And Arshea's the NG Empyreal Lord of beauty and sexuality and is genderfulid.
So...do those help?
Plus there's Dou-Bral, who absolutely was THE god of love/beauty before going on vacation and reassessing his priorities.
So sure, NOW it's Shelyn, but the concept is out there, and presumably if not for the idea to create Zon-Kuthon, that would would still be the case. Now, you could argue that you could just swap the two, and have Shelyn be the one to go all Hellraiser, but then you'd have the whips-and-spiked-chains dominatrix goddess, which would also be perpetuating a nasty trend (two really, since we'd also then have Dou-Bral trying to save his poor helpless sister). Can't address both trends at the same time here.
For monsters, Bestiary 4 has the Fossegrim, which is sort of like a nymph in that it's powers are based around Seduction. I think...don't have it open right now. Also the "sexy" Kyton (can't recall name...also in Bestiary 4) was male, breaking the current pattern of every evil outsider having a sexy "female" member.
But yeah...Paizo could do more in this area. There are mythological creatures that function like a "male nymph". The Gancanagh for starters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For monsters, Bestiary 4 has the Fossegrim, which is sort of like a nymph in that it's powers are based around Seduction. I think...don't have it open right now. Also the "sexy" Kyton (can't recall name...also in Bestiary 4) was male, breaking the current pattern of every evil outsider having a sexy "female" member.
But yeah...Paizo could do more in this area. There are mythological creatures that function like a "male nymph". The Gancanagh for starters.
I always thought that the Gancanagh was a creature that petitioned for awesome and obscure critters from mythology :)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For monsters, Bestiary 4 has the Fossegrim, which is sort of like a nymph in that it's powers are based around Seduction.
They are, but they're also evil and tend to be more about drowning people than anything else. More like Rusalka in that regard.
Definitely wouldn't mind seeing some straight-up goodly male nymph equivalents. Or heck, just have an actual male nymph show up in an adventure. We've had numerous requests for more handsome/pretty guys to rescue or help.
One thing that could help is that whenever a new creature comes along that's noted for beauty, avoid the "are mostly/all female" thing. We saw this turn up on Inner Sea Gods with Calistria and Shelyn's servitors, for a recent example.
(in headcanon, dapsaras can be male too)
Not almond-SHAPED? =)
Not almond-SHAPED? =)
Plant themed ;-)
I have used a male medusa in adventure.
Or heck, just have an actual male nymph show up in an adventure. We've had numerous requests for more handsome/pretty guys to rescue or help.Per Fey Revisited:
"Nymphs always as strikingly beautiful young women, with large almond eyes that range from the deepest cerulean to the palest emerald."
There are no male nymphs unless that line is retconned out first.
Seems to imply they could appear to be something else if they wanted.
Why there are no male gods of beauty or love.
There's Arshea, s/he can be male.
Lymnieris is the LG male Empyreal Lord of prostitution, chastity, and rites of passage, among other things.
And Arshea's the NG Empyreal Lord of beauty and sexuality and is genderfulid.
So...do those help?
Arshea does, a bit. Lymnieris not so much. His stitch is being more of a protector and upholder than a direct deity of beauty/love/sex.
Lymnieris is the LG male Empyreal Lord of prostitution, chastity, and rites of passage, among other things.
And Arshea's the NG Empyreal Lord of beauty and sexuality and is genderfulid.
So...do those help?
Plus there's Dou-Bral, who absolutely was THE god of love/beauty before going on vacation and reassessing his priorities.
So sure, NOW it's Shelyn, but the concept is out there, and presumably if not for the idea to create Zon-Kuthon, that would would still be the case. Now, you could argue that you could just swap the two, and have Shelyn be the one to go all Hellraiser, but then you'd have the whips-and-spiked-chains dominatrix goddess, which would also be perpetuating a nasty trend (two really, since we'd also then have Dou-Bral trying to save his poor helpless sister). Can't address both trends at the same time here.
Three, actually. While I'm not "on the scene", I'd love to see a presentation of BDSM in a fantasy setting that doesn't associate it with fiends. I remember there was an internet project about this some time ago... 1d4 chan, I think?
Regardless, Dou-Bral is a piece of background. While he's interesting, the fact remains that he's more of a tool to deepen Zon'Kuthon's character.
For monsters, Bestiary 4 has the Fossegrim, which is sort of like a nymph in that it's powers are based around Seduction. I think...don't have it open right now. Also the "sexy" Kyton (can't recall name...also in Bestiary 4) was male, breaking the current pattern of every evil outsider having a sexy "female" member.
But yeah...Paizo could do more in this area. There are mythological creatures that function like a "male nymph". The Gancanagh for starters.
I offered many thanks for the Fossegrim when they came out, you can look up my posts. They're a step on the right direction.
For monsters, Bestiary 4 has the Fossegrim, which is sort of like a nymph in that it's powers are based around Seduction.They are, but they're also evil and tend to be more about drowning people than anything else. More like Rusalka in that regard.
Definitely wouldn't mind seeing some straight-up goodly male nymph equivalents. Or heck, just have an actual male nymph show up in an adventure. We've had numerous requests for more handsome/pretty guys to rescue or help.
One thing that could help is that whenever a new creature comes along that's noted for beauty, avoid the "are mostly/all female" thing. We saw this turn up on Inner Sea Gods with Calistria and Shelyn's servitors, for a recent example.
(in headcanon, dapsaras can be male too)
Bold mine. This is precisely what I'm talking about.
At this point, I don't even require them to be Good anymore. I mena, sure, it would be extremely nice to see. Good outsiders/Fey need heaps of attention too, but I can understand the need to not overpopulate the setting with critters your player don't have a reason to eventually beat up. Just "male" and "love/beauty/sex" does it.
I mean, you want an example? Look at Graz'zt. Bastard was intriguing, fun to roleplay, and damn sexy. We need another one of those.
|
Arshea does, a bit. Lymnieris not so much. His stitch is being more of a protector and upholder than a direct deity of beauty/love/sex.
Lymnieris frequently has Arshea over, and is described in a pretty sexualized fashion...so I'm really not sure if it's that indirect.
Three, actually. While I'm not "on the scene", I'd love to see a presentation of BDSM in a fantasy setting that doesn't associate it with fiends. I remember there was an internet project about this some time ago... 1d4 chan, I think?
Yeah, here I'm with you. BDSM needs some positive examples in fiction in general.
Well, while the material tends not to be explicit about characters' sexual activity, I don't think you'd find Calistria and her followers opposed to more edged expressions of sexuality.
Well, while the material tends not to be explicit about characters' sexual activity, I don't think you'd find Calistria and her followers opposed to more edged expressions of sexuality.
Oh, sure. I also don't think any of the Good deities would actually care as long as it was mutually consensual and pleasurable to all the involved.
Still, at a glance, who's the guys with the chains, the leather, and the whips? Presentation matters.
On a slightly different note, I found the 1d4 article I was talking about. Material of questionable taste ahead, read at your own discretion..
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, Shelyn might object if the whips and chains aren't the pretty kind. ;-)
I do have plans to expand on Holomog some day. They're kinda sort of being set up as a good balance against the evil of Geb, on one level, with the field of petrified maidens south of Geb being mostly Holomogian soldiers.I'm curious what examples you were thinking of for Good matriarchal societies.james jacobs said Holomog is a Good matriarchal society.I'm not up on Holomog. Is it a matriarchy by Patrick's "Institutional sexism" definition? Or is it just that it has female rulers?
We don't know. It's in Southern Garund and all we know about it at the moment is that the military appears to be mostly female, they ride dinosaurs, and they're vaguely described as both matriarchal and Good.
That's it.
I'm definitely not the only one interested in seeing Holomog fleshed out more. Southern Garund Gazetteer? Yes, please.
Speaking of Southern Garund, Nurvatchta would also be an interesting choice for a "good" matriarchy, or at least a "non-evil non-misandrist" matriarchy, which would be a nice counterpoint...
At this point, I don't even require them to be Good anymore. I mena, sure, it would be extremely nice to see. Good outsiders/Fey need heaps of attention too, but I can understand the need to not overpopulate the setting with critters your player don't have a reason to eventually beat up. Just "male" and "love/beauty/sex" does it.
I mean, you want an example? Look at Graz'zt. Bastard was intriguing, fun to roleplay, and damn sexy. We need another one of those.
Soccothbenoth. Male Demon Lord of Sex. Fairly close to Grazzt and in Golarion canon.