| 36 people marked this as a favorite. |
This post is about my perception of a trend regarding hypersexualized women in Pathfinder materials. There’s no one grievous example, and it’s not something I’m going to huff about canceling my subscription or not buying Paizo products any longer. I love Pathfinder materials and think that, as a whole, the company stands head and shoulders above other RPG crowds. Rather, I want to mention it because I wonder if it’s A) a message that Paizo actually wants to send, and B) because I honestly think whatever this trend is can just be done better. It is a very long post, and for that I apologize! I wanted to be as thorough and articulate as possible, however.
That said, the trend itself is this: Whenever topics of a sexual nature come up, or are presented in an AP, the ones either doing the sexual aggression or else being sexually available are almost invariably female. Worse, even in cases where gender should logically not be an issue, it IS made into an issue. Female npcs and villains are consistently portrayed as aggressively bisexual, certain races are designed purely for the benefit of straight, white, male gamers, and – most importantly, in my opinion – none of this actually serves the story.
I am going to start with the most recent examples found in Wrath of the Righteous, and other APs, because I feel like these are most egregious examples. Now, the Wrath of the Righteous was an AP I really enjoyed, in spite of these parts, so I don’t want this to sound like a litany of complaints and nothing more.
First off, I’d like to start with what seems to be the discrepancy in the minds of the male authors who wrote the last 5 books of the campaign; despite the players visiting 2 of the 3 Abyssal realms where “creatures of lust” are common (Noticula and Baphomet’s realms, both of which are described as containing incubi and succubi in the gazetters of both places), and despite demons supposedly not having the same human sexual hang-ups and attractions as heteronormative human men, the players encounter a whopping 13 named, described, and tactically outlined succubi and/or succubi-related creatures (lilltus and half-succubi, hereafter referred to as simply “succubi” for simplification). These succubi are all described as beautiful women, referred to as women, and are set up to be female, even in the one example of a succubus wearing a male form “for work preferences”. All of these creatures are placed in sexual context, all of them try to charm, sleep with, or otherwise use their appearance to interest (male) characters, and have intelligent, complex tactics outlined for dealing with player characters. Of these sexy she-demons, 3 of them are Demon Princes (or nearly so) in power. 8 of them have Mythic status. At least 6 have unique artwork, all of them have unique statblocks, and all also have detailed appearances in the text (with the exception of the occasionally male-appearing succubus, whose male appearance is simply described as “attractive” and “dark”).
And you know what? All of that is GREAT. Perfectly cool, so awesome, and so rad. I love that these clever demons have gotten to where they are, I love the frank portrayal about their tactics, I love the art and how absolutely radical they all are. I like the variation, I like that some of the succubi aren’t portrayed sexually in their artwork, I like that they have unique and varied stats! All of that, by itself, is fine!
What’s not okay is the bizarre disparity between female creatures with overt sexual connotations, and male ones.
There are a total of 3 named incubi in the AP. I don’t even need to include an “incubi-related” tag in this, because there aren’t any. Of those three named incubi, only one has any impact of note on the players. The other two are given names, but are not given any ways to interact with the players. One of the three is merely a footnote in a succubi’s backstory. Of the incubi the players actually encounter, both simply “fight to the death” and do not have any tactics, interest in manipulation, seduction, or charm. In short, these demons with strong, overtly sexual connotations do not have any role in the campaign beyond that of a warrior grunt.
Of the unnamed incubi and succubi, the unnamed succubi are again presented as consorts. There are no incubi consorts. They fill the role of warrior grunts. I want to focus on this particular theme, because I feel that – while any of the Paizo materials could be viewed as “just fine” if seen alone – this best illustrates a strangely constant, heteronormative male-interest undertone that comes at the expense of not only the nonhetero, and non-male, players, but also the world itself.
I don’t think anyone could argue to me that incubi and succubi occupy the same role. They both can change self, they both have an emphasis on seduction, manipulation, intelligence, and control, and they both have a long history in both DnD lore and real world lore of carrying strong, sexual connotations. I genuinely don’t understand the need to specify them as two distinct creatures in the beastiary, much less the need for different stats, but, again, that by itself is fine.
What’s not okay is the way that it’s used. Both of these creatures are sexually charged, interest in lust, described in multiple gazetteers as creatures of lust, and yet only the, inexplicably, physically weaker of the two is placed into positions of sexual subservience. Only the ones placed into sexual subservience have interactions with the players, in Wrath of the Righteous and all other APs where succubi (and, rarely, incubi) are mentioned. Despite the fact that both creatures are almost equal, and despite the fact that both form from souls of lust, and despite many writers’ purported claims that “gender is of no consequence” to shapechangers like succubi and incubi, that is clearly NOT the case.
Aside from the fact that incubi are invariably presented as warrior-grunts with no sexuality, I’m going to return to the male-form-wearing succubus mentioned in the “City of Locusts” AP. Whatever the author’s intentions were, this is not a transgeder character. Again, I would LOVE for that to be so; however, she is not. She wears this form in relation to her work at the brothel. She is the least-described succubus of the SIX succubus who work the all-female-staffed brothel (save for two disgusting fly-demons who serve as butler and cook), and she has no possibility of interaction with the players given the fact that she is the only one currently entertaining a client when the players arrive; additionally, unlike some of the other succubi, she does not have any “redemption-worthy” features. Again, she is presented as the most likely to simply be killed of the succubi. More importantly, however, is the reason she is not transgender: demons are not born. Yes, on OCCASION there are certain demon backstories where they are the product of birth, rather than forming from a soul’s desires; this is not one of those cases. Her soul, when it was morphing into a demon, desired to be a succubus rather than an incubus. It’s that simple.
The other piece of this that I’d like to return to is the matter of “gender is of no consequence” that Paizo often attaches to succubi. That would be great! Except it clearly DOES matter, since A) only succubi are ever presented with the opportunity to sexually attract players, and B) if gender truly “did not matter”, then why does it matter if the creature doing the seduction is male or female, when their appearance is whatever the PC desires anyways? I want to discuss this question seriously, because this is what really burns me the most. In a world that purports to be free of the gender inequality that strangles the real world, Golarion is remarkably geared towards what straight, heteronormative men want to see. If gender didn’t matter, then why isn’t the succubus brothel staffed by 6 incubus instead? Does anybody think that would matter to the players? If it does matter, why? Their base forms might be male, sure, but in this case, 4 of the 6 incubi would still appear as completely female, with one androgynous one, and then the one congruous one would still be killed immediately by the players, so honestly, what does it matter?
Logically, it shouldn’t matter. We all know it does. And that’s fine, I’m not writing this to push people’s boundaries. Where it DOES matter, however, is how sexually objectified men are consistently ignored, forgotten about, or even outright DERIDED. This is a quote from “Curse of the Lady’s Light”, the 2nd book in the Shattered Star AP, and written by Mike Shel: “Neither Sorshen nor Nocticula bothered recording the names of the incubi who served.”
Why does that addition matter? Why is that piece even mentioned? Why would the pansexual Runelord of Lust bother making a distinction between genders? Why would the Demon Prince of Lust, who can shapechange just as easily as any other ‘cubi creature, make that distinction?
I know the real answer, of course; men as sexual objects is an extremely uncomfortable subject for these writers, so there’s an AP like City of Locusts full of pin-up girls and stuff only purely hetero men would be interested in. This isn’t a new thing either, or a “one writer, one time” incident. “Curse of the Lady’s Light” is an adventure where the (clearly intended to be male) PCs venture into a compound full of enthralled women, in bordello-like surroundings, and fight succubi, alu-fiends, specifically FEMALE lustspawn, and oh by the way, all of these women have hot lesbian connotations surrounding them. Of the total encounters in the AP, there Is one unnamed, unimportant incubus. Guess what his job is! He’s a warrior-grunt, guarding the door. There is one other male creature in the AP – an enthralled dhampir, cast off as undesirable now that the alu-fiend can pursue a lesbian relationship. He has nothing more to do with the players should they free him.
The impossibility of men in positions of sexual subservience, or being viewed as sexual objects, continues throughout all of Paizo’s materials. I already mentioned the incubus/succubus split, where the incubus is removed from “clever seducer” to simply “stupid warrior-grunt rapist” (and accompanied by a remarkably nonsexual, remarkably unattractive picture of a generic demon that in no way fits the utterly generic “dark and attractive” line Paizo uses to describe any physically attractive male creature). It’s a long-running theme, however, and can be seen across the whole last ten years. Nocticula has gotten a number of different depictions; in the latest AP, the original book containing the Demon Princes and in the new book as well. Her lusty brother, Socothbenoth has gotten one – in the original depiction of him (alongside Nocticula). He has not been depicted since, despite mentions of him in newer materials. The Lashunta are a more stupid example, in my own opinion, of allowing someone to insert his love of nude chicks riding dinosaurs while spitting on anyone not interested in those nude chicks. Lashunta women are described as “tall, extremely attractive human or elven women” and are gifted, intelligent, articulate babes that wear as little as possible on their hothouse planet. They have at least 2-3 art depictions of female Lashunta.
Lashunta men are described as “short, warlike, brutish and aggressive”, so stocky that they are almost as wide as they are tall. There are no depictions of male lashunta. Why? I mean, not like I’m interested in playing one, because the fact that there is no equivalent race in all of Pathfinder’s materials disgusts me, but if this is meant to be an optional player race (and it is included as an option in some material), why wouldn’t there be a depiction of male lashunta, even as terrible and unattractive as they are?
It’s not just new, alien races either. Old creatures, like driders, have been edited too. How many of you knew that male driders turn bug-faced when they’re turned into driders? I actually had no idea until very recently! That’s great though, don’t worry – female driders still have certifiably hot lady-parts. The curse can determine what genders it wants to turn into scary cannon fodder and what genders it wants to keep for sexy art purposes. What would happen to an intersex drow that got turned into a drider? Who knows! Probably though it’d just keep all its sexy lady-parts and be a lady-drider in appearance.
Of course, it’s hard to decide whether hideous men/attractive, gorgeous, male-gaze-satisfying women races are better, or worse than those races that are solely female – BUT! – also still fully satisfying that all-important male gaze! The “strictly female” changeling race is probably another straight-up stupid example of this but another terrible offender is the thraie. Actually it was the recent addition of a new thraie creature in “The Shifting Sands” AP that really galvanized this post. The thraie, for those of you who do not know, are conventionally attractive women with all the necessary lady-parts that heteronormative men find attractive, a couple of bee-like appendages tossed on, and an absolute need to mate with humanoid males in order to continue their species. Why are there no male thraie filling that role? Who cares! What purpose does their attractive-to-straight-white-males beauty/body type serve? Well… none, really. They keep male humanoids drugged up, specifically DO NOT develop romantic attachments or relationships to them (view them as “favored pets” at best), and then eat them for nutrients when they die. Their physical appearance is utterly irrelevant, save for serving as fodder for male gaze.
Which I genuinely do not understand. I mean, I want to be clear – while I would dearly love for Paizo to publish material that includes appeal to non-hetero male gazers, I realize that isn’t always possible, and can make people uncomfortable. That’s fine! That’s not the ONLY solution, however. There is another possibility – to just not publish material like the stuff I listed anymore.
Don’t print more all-female, nude attractive girl races. Don’t print all-female-staffed brothels. No more dumb-dumb axe-wieldy incubi serving as simple cannon-fodder. If someone writes that stuff, correct them. While I love adult issues in campaigns, and I love seeing people handle them maturely, I don’t like it when female players roll their eyes and can only grudgingly participate in an AP. I don’t like trying to justify to myself why a race like the thraie, or the lashunta, shouldn’t simply be exterminated on sight in defiance of the dominant culture foisting its views on what’s attractive to me. I don’t like the harm it does to my experience of Pathfinder APs, and I don’t like having to swallow my irritation and anger every time I read about another race that just seems to serve as personal fantasy fodder for purely hetero dudes.
I love Pathfinder. I really do. I say this because I want Pathfinder to be perfect, and because I whole-heartedly respect their efforts to be socially progressive, to be mindful of women’s experiences in tabletop games. I don’t think it is at all hard for it to do better, and the material that I’m talking about should not matter, and I can’t imagine someone paying 30 bucks for a book (or not) based on whether it’s got enough scantily-clad girls in it. At least, not for an RPG book that isn’t using that as its main selling point :P
TL/DR
In short, I’ve perceived that there is a trend of women being placed in positions of sexual subservience, while men – even of the exact same lusty race – are not. It’s a weirdly consistent, borderline fetishistic constant throughout a LOT of Pathfinder materials, and while I’d love to see some real equivalence, I understand that’s not always possible. Failing equivalence, however, there’s another option: to not send that message at all, by no longer allowing material that perpetuates it. I’m not die-hard and bitter about this, however, and I’d love to hear other people’s experiences or reactions, to this, the material I’ve talked about, or whatever you feel like adding (if you feel like you have something to add).
Oh, fantastic, Joana, thank you! I have no idea what to look for on these forums (much less how it's organized). I was sort of afraid there wasn't much audience at all. Can I ask if there's more examples that you can think of, or if anything I cited was similar for you too? I can only speak to my own personal reactions to some of these things, and have otherwise just seen the women in my playgroup react with absolute derision towards the lashunta - but I always wonder if that's really a picture of the other people playing Pathfinder.
Do you, or any female gamers, (or maybe even anyone really), actually like the concept of a race like the lashunta? Or the thraie emphasis on giving male PCs the opportunity to mate with them? I just feel like I'm somehow alone in boggling at why these races, or some of the things that happen in different APs, are ever even included...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know where you're coming from. If it's any consolation, you're not the only one who has noticed that there are a large number of attractive female NPCs in comparison to male ones. There have been quite a few threads on the subject (as pointed out by Joana above).
I've long wanted a nascent incubus demon lord, and was hoping to see one detailed ruling one of Nocticula's Midnight Isles. When Pathfinder #76 was released, however, all it had was a passing mention of Shamira's predecessor, an incubus named Ziforian who Nocticula banished to the sewers below Alushinyrra. I've personally found the artwork of incubi so far (all three of them, I think?) to be underwhelming - they lack horns, and aren't all that attractive.
In Skull and Shackles, there are 2 attractive redheaded female NPCs (Sandara Quinn and Tessa Fairwind), though to be fair Pierce Jerrell is somewhat attractive and pointed out as a romance option. I've honestly thought about gender swapping Sandara, though I quite like Tessa.
As for all male races, there are satyr (and fauns, who are mostly male), though I've found some of their artwork to be disappointing as well. Also in Pathfinder #76 are the all-male cambion demons who are sired by incubi, and there are 2 of them in said adventure. Two positive art depictions I've noticed were both in Bestiary 4, the Empyreal Lord Cernunnos and the fossegrim, both male and decent looking.
Hopefully things will change and more attractive male NPCs and romance options will be included in the future. In the meantime, I've homebrewed a few nascent demon lords, including an incubus one. Perhaps when Socothbenoth is detailed we'll be treated to some nice artwork and the male side of sensuality will be shown a little more.
On a sidenote, I noticed in Inner Sea Gods that some of the words in Cayden Cailean's section have changed. For one example, his original article said "He believes everyone would get along if they could sit down and have a drink, preferably in the company of lovely ladies." In the updated Inner Sea Gods, it says the same, save that it replaces 'lovely ladies' with 'attractive companions.' There are a few more word switches in his article like that. Small touches like that can go a long way, I think.
Oh there have been some AMAZING depictions of dudes! The fossegrim (especially compared to his 3.5 art) and Cernunnos are both hands-down amazing. Compared to the sheer volume of male-gaze eye-candy, however, it's really disappointing! The rare gems like the (male) planatar lord of prostitutes in Chronicle of the Righteous (no artwork) and attractive cambions like Mustafen (nice artwork) are the unintentional exception, rather than the rule. And again, I can't help but feel that - with the exception of the fossegrim, the inclusion of which still blows my mind to this day - the artwork used is not meant to be "attractive". Rather it simply happened to be the artwork given, and the fact that someone might consider that man to be good-looking is a complete accident. How else can it be explained that there are nearly limitless female seductress monsters with stunning artwork, in multiple poses, while the male seducer monsters have the blandest and most forgettable looks?
And while there are all-male races, I think there are... maybe two? Satyrs and cambions, both of which have all-female race equivalents (nymphs or dryads and alu-fiends, respectively, both of which also have also made significantly earlier AND more frequent appearances in PF material than their male counterparts). It's still a ration of like, 99% in favor of male gaze/male fantasy, and somehow I just can't believe that 99% of paizo players are straight males.
Are there other small examples that you can think of? I mean, I can name a few, but as a bi dude I don't know that my opinion really has as much weight as the female gamer.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the lashunta serve the same purpose as the sexually dimorphic alien races in the pulp sci-fi they're based on: to put the hero (read: PCs) in a situation where they literally have no sexual competition for a world full of hot women.
Paizo puts themselves in an odd place in that they want both to be progressive and to honor/homage older fantasy literature that was sexist and heteronormative. Frankly, I don't think they can do both successfully.
As I've said in other threads, I don't begrudge the likes-women crowd their eye-candy and wish-fulfillment scenarios; I'd just like to have similar opportunities for the likes-men crowd. Women in Paizo products seem too often to exist for the purpose of being sexually available, while men are just bandits or shopkeepers or guards or what-have-you. It's not so much that women are hypersexualized as that men seem to have no sexuality at all; it has to be added by the GM if there are players in the group interested in romance with a male.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
This will never be a 50% male/50% female hobby. My current game is, but we're 3 couples playing together.
Men like boobs. I'm sorry to say it, but it is just that simple. When 90+% of your clientele are male, it needs to be oriented towards males.
It isn't 90% male because of the "hypersexualization," it is hypersexualized because it is 90% male.
Does that get under some women's skin, and turn them off toward the hobby and company? Certainly.
Does it bother most women? No one can say without some hefty empirical evidence, but in my experience I would guess most women accept it without so much as a second thought.
My wife is an artist and draws over-the-top pieces of art. She's quite good at it. She doesn't usually attempt to mimic reality, nor should she pressured into it because X percent of female gamers wish there were less depictions of women in sexy armor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo puts themselves in an odd place in that they want both to be progressive and to honor/homage older fantasy literature that was sexist and heteronormative. Frankly, I don't think they can do both successfully.
You know, I clearly recognized them as originating from 1960s pulp fantasy, but I had been wondering if that was just me! I agree though, it's really hard to be socially progressive without equivalence.
As I've said in other threads, I don't begrudge the likes-women crowd their eye-candy and wish-fulfillment scenarios; I'd just like to have similar opportunities for the likes-men crowd. Women in Paizo products seem too often to exist for the purpose of being sexually available, while men are just bandits or shopkeepers or guards or what-have-you. It's not so much that women are hypersexualized as that men seem to have no sexuality at all; it has to be added by the GM if there are players in the group interested in romance with a male.
I struggled with what to title my thread for the longest time. You hit the nail on the head - and while I do think that women are often placed as sexual objects in campaigns and modules, the complete lack of men in any sexual capacity in pathfinder material exacerbates the situation and just makes those instances of sexualized girls seem like they've been kicked into overdrive. Calling the thread "the lack of men as objects of sexual desire" in pathfinder doesn't have quite the same ring to it... and I was worried about conflating two goals. I mean, on the one hand I DO want what the other side is having! But, short of that, if Paizo's not interested in giving our side some whip cream too, once in a while, I don't see any reason why Paizo couldn't just... maybe stop serving whip cream altogether, and instead just serve a dish everyone can enjoy.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I agree on the succubus/incubus(female seducer/male predator) imbalance and want to see that evened out, I'd love even more for more healthy male options as well, be they celestials*(need more male dapsaras!) or goodly fey(male nymph equivalents plz) or male redemption-bait(cute but troubled drow and tieflings have a following y'know) or just some sex-positive and available decent folks.
|
|
Also, while I skipped the WotR details above(because I really don't want that AP spoiled for me), did anyone mention
Oh the melodrama we're gonna get out of that. :)
|
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
This will never be a 50% male/50% female hobby. My current game is, but we're 3 couples playing together.
Men like boobs. I'm sorry to say it, but it is just that simple. When 90+% of your clientele are male, it needs to be oriented towards males.It isn't 90% male because of the "hypersexualization," it is hypersexualized because it is 90% male.
Does that get under some women's skin, and turn them off toward the hobby and company? Certainly.
Does it bother most women? No one can say without some hefty empirical evidence, but in my experience I would guess most women accept it without so much as a second thought.My wife is an artist and draws over-the-top pieces of art. She's quite good at it. She doesn't usually attempt to mimic reality, nor should she pressured into it because X percent of female gamers wish there were less depictions of women in sexy armor.
Even if that were true(and I've serious doubts on those numbers, looking around at Gencon alone), it's no reason to not challenge the status-quo and do something productive about it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I keep trying to convince friends and my significant other that this hobby is more than just something for teenage boys but have little luck. Getting "Inner Sea Magic"(cover) in the mail was just embarrassing. I want to get and read these things but I just feel silly.
| 21 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, but an AP who's first two NPC couples include a lesbian pairing with a transgender angle and a gay male couple is hardly the example I'm going to use when complaining about the 'hypersexualization' of female characters... if anything I find that Paizo swings too far in the other direction. Having said that, whether you agree or not, Paizo is demonstrably more sensitive to these issues and concerns than any other gaming company out there right now, and likely moreso than any in history. They go any further and they'll risk alienating the vast majority of their paying customers.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
This will never be a 50% male/50% female hobby. My current game is, but we're 3 couples playing together.
Men like boobs. I'm sorry to say it, but it is just that simple. When 90+% of your clientele are male, it needs to be oriented towards males.
I like boobs. I love them as much as any guy. I don't need them in my RPG. Time and place, and since I'm a guy, why aren't I marketed to as well?
It isn't 90% male because of the "hypersexualization," it is hypersexualized because it is 90% male.
Does that get under some women's skin, and turn them off toward the hobby and company? Certainly.
Does it bother most women? No one can say without some hefty empirical evidence, but in my experience I would guess most women accept it without so much as a second thought.
It started out as a boys club. For some reason, it continues to be a boys club. Statements like this - "yeah some people are unhappy, why should it change?" - serve to perpetuate that. You're aware that some women are intensely unhappy about it. Other women, also raised to accept male standards as the norm for themselves, and knowing the futility of complaining about only seeing things geared for men, don't say anything. You're saying that silence is acceptance, and that just because someone accepts something, it's "okay". I'm sorry, but I very much disagree that it's truly the case.
My wife is an artist and draws over-the-top pieces of art. She's quite good at it. She doesn't usually attempt to mimic reality, nor should she pressured into it because X percent of female gamers wish there were less depictions of women in sexy armor.
Great! GOOD. I'm very glad your wife is able to draw what she likes, and feel open and accepted about it. That's AWESOME! That's also not at all what I am saying here. Your wife can draw whatever she wants, whenever she wants, however she wants. However, if Paizo were to commission her, she would be asked to draw what they want. I am asking Paizo that - if they're not going to include more material for the other side - that they simply not ask for stuff that your wife draws. She still has every right to draw anything she pleases! I have a right to ask that it not be included in my RPG material.
It's NOT the art itself though. It's the material presented alongside said art. If Paizo wants to include a pin-up, like I keep saying, GREAT. Where it gets weird is when women are designed - in the game world itself - to be busty, beautiful, alluring and charismatic babes, while all the men are nondescript nobodies, with unattractive art that's not nearly as provocative as Nocticula sticking her tongue out and doing the splits.
People buy this material regardless of how sexualized it is. Given the text-based and reading-intensive nature of it, I find it very hard to believe that the casual T and A crowd buys one of these APs because there's a lusty-looking broad on one of the inside pages, along with a text description of how she sleeps with women as well. I similarly find it hard to believe that people will NOT buy a book because there is one, single, moderately decent, sexualized at all man on one of the inside pages with a similar phrase about sleeping with his own gender as well.
Sorry, but an AP who's first two NPC couples include a lesbian pairing with a transgender angle and a gay male couple is hardly the example I'm going to use when complaining about the 'hypersexualization' of female characters... if anything I find that Paizo swings too far in the other direction. Having said that, whether you agree or not, Paizo is demonstrably more sensitive to these issues and concerns than any other gaming company out there right now, and likely moreso than any in history. They go any further and they'll risk alienating the vast majority of their paying customers.
The first two books are amazing. I stated that I loved the AP as a whole in my first post. However, the AP also ends with a ridiculous amount of unique, highly detailed succubi. Despite traveling to 2 of the 3 home planes of incubi/succubi, there are ZERO incubi interactions where they are depicted as the original intended design of the race, despite there being numerous opportunities for male characters to interact that way with succubi. Yes, Amber Scott and Neil Spicer did insanely beautiful jobs that blew me away and are the sole reason I am still a subscriber today. What's wrong with holding the entire AP up to the same standards as the first two books?
edit: I'm sorry, I tried to be very mindful of spoilers! It's as vague as possible, if that helps. Non-spoiler about Lann: not only is Lann one of the prettiest men in a looooong, long time, and the reason I dragged my friend into doing the Wrath of the Righteous AP with me, but he's completely up to the GM to decide what to do with.
Publisher, Chief Creative Officer
|
| 30 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of excellent points raised here. As has been mentioned, the Lashunta's gender dimorphism is a call-back to 30s planetary romance races in books like Robert E. Howard's Almuric (which we republished in our Planet Stories imprint) and similar works by Ray Cummings and Ralph Milne Farley. I think it's fair to criticize those ideas as playing into a heterosexual male power fantasy, but then again a lot of the underpinnings of the game can probably be criticized on those grounds. In any event, it's just one race out of a thousand, and I think there's room for all kinds of ideas along the edges. As an example it definitely plays into the narrative you've inferred, but in isolation I am personally able to be ok with this one as an homage, even if your criticisms are valid.
The reason there is no art for "ugly" male Lashunta can be attributed to the way we budget for books before all of the text is in. There's generally budget for one illustration per monster or race, so unless someone is on top of their game and makes an adjustment, it's easy for "alternate views" and things to never get generated. I don't think that's a particularly good excuse, but it is an example of how banal some of the reasons behind the trends you've outlined can be.
It's clear to me that some of the points you make about the representation of incubi in relation to the presentation of "sexy" female demons are right on the nose, and are food for further consideration.
Honestly I think lust demons and stuff are getting pretty played out at this point, so I'd rather we move away from that sort of content entirely, at least for a good long while. It's not as if it's uncovered ground, at this point.
Thanks for the thoughtful criticism.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to start by saying I completely agree with you. I need more Seltyiel in my pathfinder. However, I would reserve "hypersexualized" for far more egregious offenders than Paizo.
Big wigs seem to be fairly aware of the problem, though. Hopefully this leads to change. At least Paizo has people that care about this subject, unlike a lot of other companies.
While I'm 100% sympathetic to this problem, I don't think adding more incubi, specifically, is really a good solution for making the game more female-friendly. They have their own pretty serious problems.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Both varieties of demons "have their own pretty serious problems". That's why we call them demons.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kind of an aside, but the description of the Lashunta always made my eyes roll a bit. They're pretty much humans, with exaggerated (Hollywood for the female Lashunta) sexual characteristics.
And yes MaizyKissed, that cover would make me feel slightly awkward being seen in public with it.
Oddly, I didn't care much for the thraie until #81, though part of that is non-human anatomy interacting with the clothing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of excellent points raised here. As has been mentioned, the Lashunta's gender dimorphism is a call-back to 30s planetary romance races in books like Robert E. Howard's Almuric (which we republished in our Planet Stories imprint) and similar works by Ray Cummings and Ralph Milne Farley. I think it's fair to criticize those ideas as playing into a heterosexual male power fantasy, but then again a lot of the underpinnings of the game can probably be criticized on those grounds. In any event, it's just one race out of a thousand, and I think there's room for all kinds of ideas along the edges. As an example it definitely plays into the narrative you've inferred, but in isolation I am personally able to be ok with this one as an homage, even if your criticisms are valid.
The reason there is no art for "ugly" male Lashunta can be attributed to the way we budget for books before all of the text is in. There's generally budget for one illustration per monster or race, so unless someone is on top of their game and makes an adjustment, it's easy for "alternate views" and things to never get generated. I don't think that's a particularly good excuse, but it is an example of how banal some of the reasons behind the trends you've outlined can be.
Cool man, thanks a lot for explaining that part of the process. It really is a pretty lame excuse though, especially when it can be pointed out that female lashunta art already existed, and if there was the inclusion of them as player-race options, the needed art would therefore be of lashunta males. In my opinion, a choice was made about which gender of that race people would actually take interest in, and which one is considered less important.
I want to be clear though, that nude chicks riding dinosaurs is just the coolest thing! But "heterosexual male power fantasy" races are so much more than 1 in 1000. The thraie, lamias, changelings, folarrn (which at least are described as officially strictly female, despite AP material otherwise), sirens, medusas losing the snake-tails of gorgons, and - again - drider men being creepy bugs but drider women remaining beautifully gorgeous - should alone be more than enough proof of the overwhelming number of "female monsters existing for the sake of being oggled by dudes". Like I said in my first post, taken by itself? An homage to the classic art on innumerable fantasy covers is way cool. Nostalgic and cool! But these aren't taken in isolation. In all the years since that homage, in all the years since many of these creatures were made in 3.5, there hasn't been anything in terms of equivalency. Yeah, there are incubi and satyrs - which are ignored, or taken in directions counter to their original design - but those already provide female equivalents. "One in a thousand" is fine, if there's even a single race that suggests anything equal for the other side... but there's not. There is nothing. Worse, these races don't seem to get set aside; the addition of a new thraie mob in the latest AP is what got me to finally sit down and write this post that I have been stewing over for months now. It's because I don't want to see more time, space, and budget given to these things - so long as the discrepancy continues to exist - that I get angry. And then I get sad, and it's just tiring, and disappointing, because I like Pathfinder (and Golarion) so much, and I don't want to be so irritated by these APs I look forward to every month!
Honestly I think lust demons and stuff are getting pretty played out at this point, so I'd rather we move away from that sort of content entirely, at least for a good long while. It's not as if it's uncovered ground, at this point.
Thanks for the thoughtful criticism.
"Lust demons" are not played out; succubi and the four possible variations of them are. What I'm interested in, in fact, hasn't been covered by pretty much any large game company, to my knowledge. I don't want to seem rude, or unappreciative of the respect you convey in your post, but I just to be clear here. One side got their fantasy fodder, to top off the pile of fantasy fodder they've gotten since the RPG genre inception. The other side got less than nothing.
Which leads me to
While I'm 100% sympathetic to this problem, I don't think adding more incubi, specifically, is really a good solution for making the game more female-friendly. They have their own pretty serious problems.
Haha, oh my god, Just to be clear - I'm NOT saying that more incubi need to be made! I cited them as an example where Paizo has taken a very strange turn that does not make sense and is counter to the nature of the monster itself. They're the best example because it's clear that it has been long-running, and spans multiple APs. The answer isn't "more", it's "when they're done, do them better". That goes for any race, male, female, whatever.
I don't want more incubi. I don't want those to be the only sexually objectified men in Pathfinder. Like I said, they're AN example, prompted by recent material. The space that new thraie mob took up could have been taken up by literally anything else, however, and I don't feel like it's asking much, at all, to say "please, instead of vaguely monstrous chick with sexy lady parts #93, could there maybe be monstrous dude with sexy guy parts #2?" I mean, make it a thraie even, if they're so important. Round out the race, give it some real depth! Thraie dancers could have been empty-headed but gorgeous thraie drones, treated and viewed by female thraie the same way most humans picture needy human princesses. I mean, it sucks having only 92 sexy lady-part monsters to choose from instead of that cool 93, but throw the other side a bone here!
I'm going to start by saying I completely agree with you. I need more Seltyiel in my pathfinder. However, I would reserve "hypersexualized" for far more egregious offenders than Paizo.
Big wigs seem to be fairly aware of the problem, though. Hopefully this leads to change. At least Paizo has people that care about this subject, unlike a lot of other companies.
Yeah, I'm still feeling iffy about that term. For anyone else new to the thread, I'm sorry I used the term "hypersexualized" in reference to Pathfinder girls. Since the time of my posting, and reading the insightful replies other posters, I've figured out how to better articulate it. Still, when one side gets pie and the other does not, I don't think it's so wrong to highlight the disparity. It's just a shame that the term really seems to be conflating multiple issues. So for that. I DO apologize.
For the second part, that's precisely why I posted. I mean, I honestly like Paizo, and have seen nothing but respectful, insightful posts from every staff member (and from a huge number of people in the community made possible by those staff members). I think you're dead on, and that's the reason I stay loyal and just want things to be the tiniest bit better!
|
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
That thread again.
I think self censorship leads nowhere, I think the Paizo folk have done pretty well : they have maintained a pretty good balance over time. In fact, sometimes they are not offensive enough in my taste.
I think some parts of the audience are way over sensitive, and the slightest thing have them take offense. I note cultural trends.
All that, while we are swamped by far worse on a daily basis by mass media.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reading the original post, I have to say, you make a fantastic, well constructed and thought provoking argument!
Just to give a bit of background to my perspective, I'm a mid 20's gay white gamer relatively new to Pathfinder. I find Paizo take a great line in balancing modern day inclusiveness with pulp inspired fantasy.
It's great to see lots of positive gay characters and relationships being portrayed as well as seeing women on front covers who are in bulky, non skimpy armour in a variety of ethnicities. I feel this is important and really refreshing to see.
That said, it also needs to be balanced out with the pulp fantasy inspired by Conan stories which features hyper-masculinity (ripped dudes swinging swords) and sexy she demons. If this is not included, it gets a bit "too PC", bland, like AD&D2e, where devils and demons could not even be mentioned by name.
With regard to the succubi and demons and the like, could one not argue that it is actually showing female empowerment to a degree? A woman dominating a man, reducing him to her submissive plaything due to his weakness says empowerment to me.
I do agree that the balance could be better and any company should strive to be more inclusive. You have certainly offered a lot of food for thought and I look forward to seeing this discussion evolve provided everyone can keep the same tone as the OP!
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
xeose4, may I ask you first of all what all this have to do with white people?
certain races are designed purely for the benefit of straight, white, male gamers
What purpose does their attractive-to-straight-white-males beauty/body type serve?
I don't see how any of this would not be equally attractive to straight males of any other ethnicity. To me that former sentence immediately set off my alarm bells, and I went into reading this as just another "social justice warrior"-tirade about how straight white men are so privileged and push their sexist and racist ideals on everyone. And as a straight white male myself I have to say I feel immediately antagonized.
Well anyway, I was pleased to find you did do better than that. I can see your points mostly. As has already been discussed "hypersexualization" is a gross overstatement of the situation but you already acknowledged that.
I know Paizo for a company that strives toward equality in their writing as best they can but I don't read APs so I#m not familiar with a lot of their characters and can't tell you if there are also examples to the contrary somewhere. So if this theme really stretches through all of their writing or even most of it i would also like to see it changed but, I have to disagree on one major point:
Both Succubi and Thriae are not sexually subservient. Quite to the contrary, Succubi use sexuality to their own advantage, if anything they turn the table and make males subservient to them, and Thriae straight up rape male humanoids. As you said yourself Thriae drug victims and keep them as pets, non-consentual sex-slaves. I don't see how you can twist this into them existing to serve straight males' desires. Contrary to popular belief men do not like to be raped by women.
And as a final point I would like to point out how this whole subbubus/incubus situation can be turned around: While the succubi are clearly the ones with all the agency using their assets, being both their physical attractiveness and their wits to manipulate and achieve their goals, the male counterpart is reduced to being the meat shields for the females, sending the message that males are worth no more than as far as they can protect females, and that men are supposed to throw their lives away for women.
The same goes for lashunta, while females are smart and attractive, the males are the whipping boys existing solely to deal out and receive violence.
Both of these: Women as sex objects, and men as violence objects are age old gender roles originating in the tribal days where these roles were sadly relevant and necessary and have remained as artifacts until today, and even for the most equality conscious people are still there on at the very least an instinctual level. It's a problem we are still sorting out as a species and I wouldn't blame anyone for naturally gravitating towards depicting genders using such artifacts of gender roles, but as you rightly did (so far as i can see, with my limited view on paizo's releases), xeose4, I would still point it out and ask them to do better. But it's worth pointing out that neither gender is depicted favorably here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason there is no art for "ugly" male Lashunta can be attributed to the way we budget for books before all of the text is in. There's generally budget for one illustration per monster or race, so unless someone is on top of their game and makes an adjustment, it's easy for "alternate views" and things to never get generated. I don't think that's a particularly good excuse, but it is an example of how banal some of the reasons behind the trends you've outlined can be.
While it might be economically reasonable, in case of dimorphic races maybe you should try to order pictures showing both (or all in case of monsters that have more than two) forms - like a picture showing both a male and a female for Lashuntas.
Just my 2 Cent regarding the thriae: they are certainly not an "all-female, nude attractive girl race". The thriae depcited in the Shifting Sands bestiary isn't nude, and it isn't the least bit attractive. In fact I'd go as far as to call it disgusting.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I'm going to ignore the guys saying that THEY are not offended. Like that's a shocker.
I'm a girl. I'm currently playing Kingmaker and GMing Rise of the Runelords. So far, in bpth APs, there have been 2 quests that may develop into a sexual or romantic relationship: both female. The portrayal of women in Kingmaker is... dissapointing. For those that you do not know the AP, they are all hookers or ladies willing to go to bed with our heroes or unsatisfied house wives. My female char's best friend is a kobold, since is the only NPC she could relate with, being not interested in getting laid.
Oh, and please, stop underestimating gamer girls: I'm currently organizing the first PFS in my country.
I would like to point out that Changelings are females because Hags are females and a lot of the material that has been printed about them references that mommy dearest does attempt to come get her child later. And induct her into Haghood. So there's an ecology reason behind that. Especially when we take into account Hags have weird powers and could probably magic their way into only giving birth to girls instead of boys as a way of keeping their kind going.
If I remember some of my Forgotten Realms stuff, which is where most of my experience with Drow come from, the Drow society was Matriarchal. And a lot of the society treated men as second class citizens and their deity wasn't too big on men. So male Driders becoming arachnoid monstrosities and the females maintaining their beauty/feminine looks is in keeping with Lloth and her.... benevolence. Yeah we'll call it benevolence. But again here too we have more of an Ecology/Societal thing. I recall playing in a game dealing heavily with Drow and the really powerful Rivals/Enemies were all women because men weren't allowed to have that power. Driders are powerful, so some of them were women who had in their religious fervor "ascended" to be closer to Lloth.
I don't believe either of these two races represent "heterosexual male power fantasy". One is the product of a Hag mating with a male humanoid, the other is a someone who has transformed into a spider monster.
I agree that Paizo is a fantastic company that has been doing amazing things to change the community and social aspects of the gaming hobby. Change takes time, bringing concerns to their attention helps them maintain their focus or lets them take a look at something to see if they missed it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The complaints aren't really about there not being an in-setting reason for changelings being female only or the drider/lashunta beauty disparity, it's that those things are that way at all in such imbalanced measures.
I need more Seltyiel in my pathfinder.Your solution is more of the most metrosexual iconic?
Actually, it applies.
One of the things being asked for here, and rather frequently across multiple threads, is more equality in fanservice. Folks that are into men don't get near as much in the way of that in terms of art, love interest NPCs, or such.
More stuff like Mythic Seltyiel would be quite welcome. And more love interests like Azaz Arafe would be as well, though they could stand to be a bit more accessible.
edit: I'm sorry, I tried to be very mindful of spoilers! It's as vague as possible, if that helps. Non-spoiler about Lann: not only is Lann one of the prettiest men in a looooong, long time, and the reason I dragged my friend into doing the Wrath of the Righteous AP with me, but he's completely up to the GM to decide what to do with.
No worries at all. Have to say, the way things are playing out with him in our game have tended towards awkward-adorable. ;)
The rare gems like the (male) planatar lord of prostitutes in Chronicle of the Righteous (no artwork)Working in it! :D
*on
Dammit.
While I don't disagree with you...Socothbenoth and Incubi are kind of difficult to use, as both these demons/types of demon are explicitly called out as being associated with rape. Using Incubi as established is likely to lead to pretty heavy trigger territory, something that Paizo should justifiably be concerned about. In contrast, Succubi are associated with seduction, which is less likely to make people feel uncomfortable.
I do think we need more "seductive" monsters that are male only. As an example, I always thought it was really weird that practically every evil outsider race has a sexy female fiend. Kytons are the only fiend that avert this. And I do think we need more attractive male potential love interests in APs
Well, I'm going to ignore the guys saying that THEY are not offended. Like that's a shocker.
I'm a girl. I'm currently playing Kingmaker and GMing Rise of the Runelords. So far, in bpth APs, there have been 2 quests that may develop into a sexual or romantic relationship: both female. The portrayal of women in Kingmaker is... dissapointing. For those that you do not know the AP, they are all hookers or ladies willing to go to bed with our heroes or unsatisfied house wives. My female char's best friend is a kobold, since is the only NPC she could relate with, being not interested in getting laid.
I can't help but feel that you're missing out on some really good female NPCs...
The first book in Rise of the Runelords have Shalelu and Kendra as major NPCs - both strong, smart and capable women. The party's elven conjurer picked up Leadership, taking Shalelu as a cohort and eventually romantic interest.
The first female the party meets in Kingmaker is Svetlana, who was one of my party's favorite NPCs and a prominent member of their government.
That said, I think both Xeose and MMCJawa make very good points. Having more male sex-friendly creatures and characters is a good thing, but I'm not sure incubi is the right creature. I really like the idea of a "male nymph", or more male eyecandy fey in general.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I don't disagree with you...Socothbenoth and Incubi are kind of difficult to use, as both these demons/types of demon are explicitly called out as being associated with rape. Using Incubi as established is likely to lead to pretty heavy trigger territory, something that Paizo should justifiably be concerned about. In contrast, Succubi are associated with seduction, which is less likely to make people feel uncomfortable.
There's also the problematic issue of things all too often defaulting to "sexual female = seductive, sexual male = predator" too. This comes through in the extreme with incubi/succubi, but it also crops up to a lesser degree with nymphs and satyrs.
(and it probably bears pointing out again that a number of folks really do want a friendly male nymph equivalent)
Along with the "beautiful female/ugly male" dimorphism default, another thing that's been causing this disparity is the whole "can shapechange to look like any gender, but their natural forms are always female" thing for super-attractive beings. The most recent example of this that sticks out are the dapsaras in Inner Sea Gods, which as are stated to be always female. Personally, it would have been nice to have them able to be any gender naturally. It's just something that probably needs to be retired unless there's a really good reason for it. And there's no real good reason why there can't be male dapsaras.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a Kingmaker GM, I noticed the lack of male love interests pretty early on and attempted to correct it by adding some NPCs of my own.
As far as monsters and racial choices go there is a lot of good food for thought in the above.
It's pretty tough for me to fight the instinct to defend Paizo, but having been a subscriber since Council of Thieves (and having bought all the APs to date), I can't really refute the trend. Paizo are a pretty progressive company and take a lot of steps forward. I don't think the above issues are deliberate, so much as a product of social and cultural biases that are hard to un-learn.
I do hope Paizo improve on this aspect in the future because I have female gamers interested in the romantic fantasy aspects of RPGs, and it'd be nice for the published material to do the legwork.
I will say though that there is a promising NPC in Mummy's Mask book 2, Empty Graves.
TLDR: More sexy Draculas.
In Skull and Shackles, there are 2 attractive redheaded female NPCs (Sandara Quinn and Tessa Fairwind), though to be fair Pierce Jerrell is somewhat attractive and pointed out as a romance option. I've honestly thought about gender swapping Sandara, though I quite like Tessa.
Oddly this AP has the best female/male romantic NPC ratio of any of the APs.
While I don't disagree with you...Socothbenoth and Incubi are kind of difficult to use, as both these demons/types of demon are explicitly called out as being associated with rape. Using Incubi as established is likely to lead to pretty heavy trigger territory, something that Paizo should justifiably be concerned about. In contrast, Succubi are associated with seduction, which is less likely to make people feel uncomfortable.
There's also the problematic issue of things all too often defaulting to "sexual female = seductive, sexual male = predator" too. This comes through in the extreme with incubi/succubi, but it also crops up to a lesser degree with nymphs and satyrs.
That's probably getting into psychology and real life issues. In general, I don't think adult straight men typically worry about violent sexual assault, at least not to the degree that women in real life worry about it. So the violent sexual assaulter trope really isn't built into female based creatures, although I suppose some degree of body horror fears overlap with this.
Still doesn't explain the lack of male monsters that use seductive effects on females, but at least explains the other concerns
|
I keep trying to convince friends and my significant other that this hobby is more than just something for teenage boys but have little luck. Getting "Inner Sea Magic"(cover) in the mail was just embarrassing. I want to get and read these things but I just feel silly.
I remember getting flamed badly because I made the same complaint a decade or so ago about the cover of GURPS Wizards. That one makes Inner Sea Magic look tame, and was wholly gratuitous. (With Inner Sea Magic, at least there is a bit of a reason: the iconics in question are shown in their iconic garb, which is long-established. Of course, they could have chosen the more modestly dressed Kyra.)
|
|
I think some parts of the audience are way over sensitive, and the slightest thing have them take offense. I note cultural trends.
All that, while we are swamped by far worse on a daily basis by mass media.
I think both of these things are true. BUT, neither one undermines the OP's point.
Just because other people are hypersensitive about your behavior doesn't mean that you now have an excuse to be insensitive about your own behavior. No, Paizo shouldn't overreact. But, it's worth their being critical and thoughtful about what they're doing, and taking reasoned criticism (such as given by the OP) to heart.
|
|
As a Kingmaker GM, I noticed the lack of male love interests pretty early on and attempted to correct it by adding some NPCs of my own.
I'm trying to remember the female love interests in Kingmaker. It may be that when I GMed it (first time around, through 3 books), nobody among my players was at all interested in any romantic subplots, so it never came up.
As far as male love interests go,
Akiros Insmort seems to be the most obvious type. He's even go the "dark, evil backstory he regrets" wounded thing going on. Jhod Kavken could also potentially be one, although he's frumpy looking. And, Kesten Garess. None of them are specifically called out as possible love interests or things along those lines, but they can serve that purpose if portrayed right by the GM.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@xeose4
A few years ago someone went through and looked at gender on the covers of Dragon Magazine (published by Paizo back in the 3.5 days). The first post of their analysis can be found here. Their analysis came to similar conclusions as you did and I think you may find looking at their posts on the issue interesting. In short, they found that there was an overabundance of sexualized women on the covers of Dragon Magazine, with very little in the way of sexualized men.
In the last post of their analysis, they include a response they got from Erik Mona wherein he explains some marketing factors contributing to the trend. I think his comments shed light on the issue and might help explain why it's still happening today in Pathfinder material (cf. MaizyKissed's comment about "Inner Sea Magic").
Here are two facts that shed some light on the issue.
1) According to our not-too-scientific reader surveys, women account for 4-6% of our readership.
2) Issues featuring scantily clad women on the cover, in general, sell better than issues that do not feature scantily clad women.
It should not be a great surprise to anyone that magazine publishing is a business, and one in which we are forced to compete with companies that have budgets orders of magnitude higher than the average non-Wizards of the Coast game company. In fact, magazine publishers like Conde Nast have budgets orders of magnitude higher than even Wizards of the Coast.
In that environment, we've got to do what we've got to do to sell magazines, and sometimes that involves showing some flesh. Since roughly 95% of our audience are men, that scantily clad flesh often belongs to a female.
I need more Seltyiel in my pathfinder.Your solution is more of the most metrosexual iconic?
Yes, that is what they want. Don't ask me, I don't understand it either. Of course I don't get the whole slash fiction stuff either.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how any of this would not be equally attractive to straight males of any other ethnicity. To me that former sentence immediately set off my alarm bells, and I went into reading this as just another "social justice warrior"-tirade about how straight white men are so privileged and push their sexist and racist ideals on everyone. And as a straight white male myself I have to say I feel immediately antagonized.
I know how you feel man, and I often feel antagonized by that language too. I tried to be pretty specific with the times that I used it, however, and the reason I used it there was mostly for emphasis on the utter lack of diverse body types amongst these all-female monsters. Body types, hip-to-bust ration, and skin color are all aspects of beauty that are often VERY closely tied with ethnicity. The fact that all of these female monsters, despite wildly varying diets of only meat, soul essence, or pure honey, are shown with only one body type and yet invariably labeled as "attractive humanoid woman", portrayed by the same hourglass figure, is something I think people should be way more careful of.
I have to disagree on one major point:
Both Succubi and Thriae are not sexually subservient. Quite to the contrary, Succubi use sexuality to their own advantage, if anything they turn the table and make males subservient to them...
Two parts to this, one of which was brought up earlier with "couldn't these succubi be sexually dominant?"
They COULD be. They're not. That's not how they're portrayed in the APs, that's not what their adventures involve, and they don't hold sway over men. In "Curse of the Lady's Light," the alu-fiend enthralls a completely female group of fighters, has exclusively female lustspawn serving her (despite the race capable of being any gender), treats the incubi with derision, and does not hold sway over a single male in the entire book (having "tired" of the one male she had enthralled and banished him to obscurity in favor of partying with the female fighters).
None of the succubi in Wrath of the Righteous hold sway over a single male. None of them have a man enthralled, all of them are placed in the context of exclusively interacting with other women. The enormous bulk of them are simple sex-workers, with no plans or ability to manipulate anyone. A couple of them are mentioned directly to be in female/female relationships, with past male relationships being ended. The PCs are given directions on how interact with, woo, charm, and coax every single one of then, as needed. They are not placed in positions of sexual dominance, not in any way, shape, or form.
...and Thriae straight up rape male humanoids. As you said yourself Thriae drug victims and keep them as pets, non-consentual sex-slaves. I don't see how you can twist this into them existing to serve straight males' desires. Contrary to popular belief men do not like to be raped by women.
If that were truly the case, why design thraie to be the same, extremely attractive, perfectly female body-type they use for all other monsters? If it were the case that they simply abduct men and drug and rape them, why bother giving them an undeniably attractive appearance? I totally agree that men don't like to be raped, and personally I feel that their level of attractiveness is a clear intention of diminishing the "rape" factor while upping the "sexy lady-parts? sure I'd hit that" consent factor. I mean thraie don't have to look like human women at all. They could be utterly androgynous insects with vaguely human heads - what do their male partners care? They're high on drug-honey the entire time. The reason it's not rape, however, and the reason that they're placed into sexual subservience is the fact that they don't need to abduct men, they don't need to drug them. They're a bunch of hot chicks willing to take care of a dude on every level, up to and including allowing him to sleep with any female in the hive, so long as he's able to still perform for the queen. You can't get more "heterosexual male power fantasy" than that.
The second part, where I want to tie these two things together, is the matter of what "sexual subservience" looks like. It is not sexual empowerment when a creature's sexualization is described solely in terms of pleasing male adventurers. Female/female relationships are not mentioned for the thraie, between thraie and thraie or thraie and any other species. Sexual pleasure is not mentioned. Choosing "not to do it" is not mentioned, because it's not an option for them. If they don't have sex with human amels, their species will die.
Here's an example, to clarify things:
Writing "Thraie queens are fascinated by adventurers, and will often take lovers of any race" is sexual empowerment. "Thraie queens must take male human lovers or their hive will die" is not. One is entirely the thraie queen's choice - the other gives no choice at all, and therefore is not empowerment in any way, shape, or form.
Just my 2 Cent regarding the thriae: they are certainly not an "all-female, nude attractive girl race". The thriae depcited in the Shifting Sands bestiary isn't nude, and it isn't the least bit attractive. In fact I'd go as far as to call it disgusting.
I respect your lack of attraction to the image; however, while I personally think the picture of the thraie dancer is a good step in the right direction, she is still thin, pretty, and has scantily-clad, clearly identifiable human female lady-parts. Her text description is "elegant" with "seductive eyes". Also, the image of Zizarra on p. 44 runs completely counter to any argument that thraie are not portrayed as sexy. She is, again, scantily-clad with prominent lady-parts in the appropriate places, and has a conventionally attractive face.
Thraie are bee-like creatures that lay eggs, do not breast-feed, and only the queen can reproduce. Why thraie have breasts, and not simply chitin armor covering their vulnerable chest? Why was the new creature added a stereotypically seductive female creature, and not a hulking guardian bee-lady capable of great feats of strength? I dunno, but my guess is that it's probably because it runs counter to the male fantasy of a hive of hot women who don't care who he sleeps with (for clarification, it is explicitly stated in the thraie entry that queens do not form romantic attachments to male partners, but barren lesser-caste thraie might, therefore implying that a man may sleep with whomeever he wants in the hive, so long as he continues to sleep with the queen).
I would like to point out that Changelings are females because Hags are females and a lot of the material that has been printed about them references that mommy dearest does attempt to come get her child later. And induct her into Haghood. So there's an ecology reason behind that. Especially when we take into account Hags have weird powers and could probably magic their way into only giving birth to girls instead of boys as a way of keeping their kind going.
That's fine! I actually really like hags for a lot of reasons - however, the reason that changelings themselves are not okay is because, while they inherit their mother's power, they are attractive by human standards, described in their entry as consistently "tall", "thin", and as having very pretty or elegant faces. Despite the fact that hags are hideous creatures, revel in ugliness, and gain power in that horrific appearance, their female daughters are suddenly sexy and hot, while retaining hag-power, while their male sons remain hagspawn, inheriting their mother's brutish ugliness while receiving none of the power. As it just so happens, one of these creatures is one that male PCs can have the opportunity to interact with, rescue, and ultimately lust over, while the other is a brutish, ugly ogre designed for cannon fodder, despite both being descendents of a hag mother and human father.
Why. Why are hagspawn hideous wretches, but changelings are gorgeous, conventionally attractive chicks with unusual features?
If I remember some of my Forgotten Realms stuff, which is where most of my experience with Drow come from, the Drow society was Matriarchal. And a lot of the society treated men as second class citizens and their deity wasn't too big on men. So male Driders becoming arachnoid monstrosities and the females maintaining their beauty/feminine looks is in keeping with Lloth and her.... benevolence. Yeah we'll call it benevolence. But again here too we have more of an Ecology/Societal thing. I recall playing in a game dealing heavily with Drow and the really powerful Rivals/Enemies were all women because men weren't allowed to have that power. Driders are powerful, so some of them were women who had in their religious fervor "ascended" to be closer to Lloth.
I don't believe either of these two races represent "heterosexual male power fantasy". One is the product of a Hag mating with a male humanoid, the other is a someone who has transformed into a spider monster.
The lore almost overwhelmingly states that being turned into a drider is a sign of Lolth's displeasure, 100% for men and almost 99% for women. The reason I mention driders and specifically blame Paizo for their appearance is because Paizo is the one who made the decision to have male driders appear bug-faced and creepy, having been cursed to unattractive monster-hood in every way, while female driders are inexplicably still gorgeous in their face and significant lady-parts. The distinction between the two genders, when there is no Lolth in Golarion, is unnecessary and weird in the context of everything else they do to male counterparts of sexy lady-part females. Like I keep saying, taken in isolation, your reasoning makes perfect sense, and were this tied to some greater lore in the Pathfinder world, I wouldn't care so much. It's not, however - it's just "for some reason", and there's not one, single equivalent counter where men are transformed but retain their looks while women are made hideous.
(and it probably bears pointing out again that a number of folks really do want a friendly male nymph equivalent)
I know I definitely want this! The Glanconer fey ( image) comes to mind, although he is painted in less-than-friendly terms...
Along with the "beautiful female/ugly male" dimorphism default, another thing that's been causing this disparity is the whole "can shapechange to look like any gender, but their natural forms are always female" thing for super-attractive beings. The most recent example of this that sticks out are the dapsaras in Inner Sea Gods, which as are stated to be always female. Personally, it would have been nice to have them able to be any gender naturally. It's just something that probably needs to be retired unless there's a really good reason for it. And there's no real good reason why there can't be male dapsaras.
THANK YOU for the dapsara! I'd read them, but had forgotten! Shelyn, appreciator of beauty in all its forms... just has sexy, exclusively lady-part servants. Wow Shelyn, real inclusive there. So glad you made an entirely female race to serve you in generic and stereotypically female roles.
I'd forgotten how Inner Sea Gods just perpetuated a lot of the same dumb things that happened in previous books too. Why does the totally neutral, god-who-does-not-care-what-you-use-magic-for, True N, psycho/crazy, savant/dumb-dumb Nethys have a sexy lady-part succubus-"like" creature as one of his personal messengers? It's female representation, true, but explicitly sexualized, and her male counterpart is - an old, non-sexy lich! Also the female representation was already covered by the non-sexy ladies who also serve him so... yeah.
Turns out a LOT of Pathfinder gods have some pretty quirky hang-ups regarding gender and beauty!