On the other side of the coin, is my pansexual dhampir bard just too cliche?
(Hes roughly based on Marilyn Manson.)
Does he cast glitterdust? :)
Honestly, I can't see all the fuss bipeds make over whats showing where..
|
On the other side of the coin, is my pansexual dhampir bard just too cliche?
(Hes roughly based on Marilyn Manson.)
Does he cast glitterdust? :)
Honestly, I can't see all the fuss bipeds make over whats showing where..
Not so far, but Fey Visage is a signature spell...he's a bit of a 'shock rocker'...go fig.
I try to be really cognizant of this issue as much as possible, presenting appealing options for all my players every chance I get.
Then again, I GM for girls and guys of different ages, ethnicity, gender identities and sexual orientations, depending on my groups. My primary goal as a GM is to have my players smile and have fun. I work hard at this.
So, if that means playing the ravishing Pierce Jerrell to the 'pepe le pew' hilt or having CutThroat Grok be madly in lust with a particularly dashing PC or having Conchabar Shortstone romance up a particular foul-mouthed halfing fighter to the delight of the players, then I'm going to figure it out. I'm going to make them happy and take them on an adventure that they want to particpate in.
I do not expect Paizo to please all of the people all of the time, but I do expect them to provide me with a framework that I can utilize to tailor specific adventures to the desires of my players.
They do this for me, and I (and my players) appreciate it.
Well one possibility would be if Paizo would write AP´s or some parts of them kind of open. Meaning some roles are double defined, up to the needs or wishes of the players. So a certain NPC could just be characterized, but be female or male on GM decision and his/her role left more open.
Then again, this can already be done easily except for the art pieces and those are plenty on the internet.
Ahh, so it's a height thing. "You must be at least this tall to be sexy."
Laugh if you like, but there's a very large element of truth to that, when dealing with humans.
|
@OP,
I was not trying to dismiss your desire for more of what you like, but that's the beauty of roleplaying, we make the stories. In the AP line I would think that the romantic interests are mostly female to male and played out with a hero/savior because after all this is fantasy and those are pretty trope. Having a GMed for a mixed race/sexuality/gender table for over 10 years now and occasionally an AP NPC adapts to the player that is interested in pursuing the NPC for any reason. My biggest problem with the NPC's in most AP adventures is the lack of anything but a name/job/sex description leaving me to on-the-spot it if they want to chase this NPC down for any reason.
I think just about every product Paizo has to produce needs to be appealing to the general base of their customers (I would guess %60-%70) the young, straight male and have enough ad-hoc inclusion to keep attracting a larger audience. I think they do a bang up job of keeping the core audience happy and being inclusive enough for those outside the target. There should be more female focused hooks and there could be a little less pulp homage, especially concerning female subjugation as this stuff is usually more of distraction to the campaign, I agree with you.
For my own opinion part 2 of Burnt Offerings has the baseline of sexuality that I use in most of my games; PG-13 teen rompmance. Anything else feels kinda odd/weird discussing around my kitchen table, with kids playing in the background and my best friends of the last 15+ years...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose we might never actually see sexualized Halflings or Gnomes, either male or female, because, well, duh, they look like children. And you can get away with a lot of nudge nudge wink wink, calling things "demons" and such, but you cannot risk images of sexualized individuals that might look like children.
You just don't do that.
There is a halfling in the Advanced Race Guide (on page 64) that I find strangely attractive. I say 'strangely' because there isn't anything that's particularly sexualized about her, I just think she's really really hot. The hottest female artwork in the ARG.
On the subject at hand; From the products I have I haven't noticed a real sexualization trend. I wouldn't deny that it happens a lot but I've seen enough counter-examples throughout Paizo's artwork that it strikes me as pulling both ways: Hypersexualization and progressive.
Where I will fully agree with and want to stand up for is that men are not sexualized enough. In all seriousness the low amount of male sexualization feels like it denies a part of being male from being a part of the game. I think being as diverse with male sexualization as they are with females it would be very inspiring for new tropes possible for bedroom LARPing (I'm still being serious) as it gives men more ways to feel sexy. I, as a black male, have been ecstatic about science fiction cosplay potential than fantasy, because there are more cosplay opportunities, especially sexy cosplay opportunities, for black males in science fiction as opposed to high fantasy. It also would make adventures feel less like it's 'made for men' and more like it assumes the adventure is made for any gender.
One exception that I and my fiance noticed was that the Magus seems to be losing his clothes each time he appears. In the Core rulebook as an Eldritch Knight he has an open shirt which shrinks and shrinks each time we see him, until he becomes Mythic and loses his shirt completely.
Also to art directors, my fiance likes the shirtless weight-lifting Fighter in Ultimate Campaign.
I propose that to bring this to light and demand more male sexualization that we make and encourage a 'Boys of Pathfinder' swimsuit collection. (I swear I'm being serious.) I will contribute artwork for free if this is a thing.
I was not pointing out Valeros' bodybuilding to refute the argument but to to generally compliment paizo for the beefcake offering. I do think producing sexy male artwork would encourage more male NPCs to express their sexual sides by showing that there is an audience for it.
Well, elves.I'm more concerned with the race issue; why is it that all the sexy characters are human (or at least half-human)? Bring on the hot dwarven studs & babes! Lustful halflings! And, of course, Red-Hot Goblin Action.
Ahh, so it's a height thing. "You must be at least this tall to be sexy."
I can confirm this. There are so many essentilly mentaly blocked individuals out there. Like some who are only 5 feet but need a 7-8 feet boyfriend. And you have no idea what kind of nasty things those can tell you. Talking about power fantasies....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing demoralizes a DM then when you cast Glitterdust on vampires. Not because they might be blinded but because it makes them sparkle! Man Twilight has done more damage to vampires then any fantasy art could ever do the people of this generation.
|
|
(...)fact: female seducer creatures consistently show up in APs and other material. fact: up until EXTREMELY recently (as in within the last month), when they do, they only have females enthralled, and never have positions of sexual dominance over men.(...)I don't mean to nitpick, but this is in fact not correct. I haven't read the Wrath of the Righteous so I can't speak for how succubi are presented there, but the first adventure path Paizo ever published prominently features a succubus who is in a position of sexual dominance over both genders. The same adventure path also contains other "seductive creatures" that have males enthralled.
** spoiler omitted **
I can think of examples from Second Darkness and Curse of the Crimson Throne too, for that matter. Legacy of Fire as well if I recall correctly.
I'm sorta inclined to call that particular facet of this issue a "Wrath of the Righteous" problem more than a "Pathfinder AP" problem.
Ah. Well, that's probably so. But that doesn't mean I want Pathfinder to become Matchmaker: if I had to choose between 1) more male NPC write-ups mentioning their marital/romantic status and preferences, or 2) fewer female NPC write-ups doing the same, I'd probably go with 2. "Total word count" is a consideration, after all.
(Monster/NPC blocks could include 'Relationship Status:' lines, I guess. It seems to work for Facebook.)
If word count is a huge factor I'd go with #2 but overall I'd go for #1, because in homebrews it becomes very relevant and I've had two in game marriages to NPCs in the past year so its an aspect that my players would get in to. Also it would deepen the relationship subsystem from Ultimate Campaign.
@ DrDeath: see above. I provided a number of factual statements. fact: incubi have been divorced from their role as seducers and have consistently been regulated to guard duty, unimportant to every AP they've appeared in and unimportant to every ruling Lust Creature (alu-fiend, Runelord, and Demon Prince alike). fact: female seducer creatures consistently show up in APs and other material. fact: up until EXTREMELY recently (as in within the last month), when they do, they only have females enthralled, and never have positions of sexual dominance over men. fact: male seducer creatures don't seduce anyone. fact: aside from incubi, I am not aware of a single male seducer creature. satyrs have been mentioned, fossegrim have been mentioned, both don't fit the criteria of being "seducers" given the satyr's emphasis on being a partier and the fossegrim's emphasis on being a CE murdermachine with no other explanation or interests.
You *DO* understand those are mythological creatures, right?
And satyrs are definitely "seducers". Read The Circus of Dr Lao. Heck, that's good advice for everyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And how often has Paizo put a satyr in an adventure as opposed to the number of succubi that are regular features?
And how often has Paizo put a satyr in an adventure as opposed to the number of succubi that are regular features?
In Kingmaker book two there is a tamed Satyr that's Husband to a Dryad.
Kingmaker has quite a few satyrs actually, but I don't think they can beat the succubi. To be fair Demons have been prominent in several APs (to the point where some of the writers are describing "demon fatigue") while Kingmaker is (to my knowledge) the only AP with a large Fey presence.
Either way I think DrDeth's point is simply that satyrs should qualify as "seducers", not that the overwhelming hordes of satyrs nullify the overall point that female "seducing" monsters are more prevalent.
I didn't read book 6 of Kingmaker because I replaced it with a capstone that the books actually foreshadow (Brevic Civil War), but in what I have read the only Satyr is the one in book two who doesn't play the role of Seducer, but that of the seduced.
Male "seducer" characters and monsters rarely ever seduce people in Paizo adventures and instead act as meat shields. Is it for fear that an Incubi/Satyr seducing women would be seen as not PC?
Kingmaker has quite a few satyrs actually, but I don't think they can beat the succubi. To be fair Demons have been prominent in several APs (to the point where some of the writers are describing "demon fatigue") while Kingmaker is (to my knowledge) the only AP with a large Fey presence.
Either way I think DrDeth's point is simply that satyrs should qualify as "seducers", not that the overwhelming hordes of satyrs nullify the overall point that female "seducing" monsters are more prevalent.
When they are included, are the writing with any seducing outlined, or are they just written as "fey grunt #28"?
EDIT: Ninjas with great hair! Arrgghh.
Straight guy about to ask some dumb straight guy questions:
1. Isn't pretty much every NPC a potential romance option? Does someone have to be specifically listed as "romance-able" or specifically called out as "good-looking/sexually appealing" before they become a romance-able option?
2. If all you need is art to go with your romance-targeted NPC... isn't there an entire internet full of that? I don't mean this to be flippant... Maybe see the next question below...
3. Be patient with this one, please: Can someone give me like a book and page number of something offensive? I have flipped through Core, APG, Mythic (didn't someone call that out as being especially bad?), several AP's, and some campaign and player material. The pictures are so... I don't know... cartoonish and caricature-ish. There has never been an instance in which I have viewed a piece of PF art and had any measure of attraction or arousal. Frankly, I have stronger reactions to Daphne in old Scooby-Doo episodes. In addition, female depictions all seem to be in poses of strength... never weak or even demure.
4. So, there's a difference between art of masculine power and art of masculine sexuality? Some people have made this point, and I'm willing to believe you... What kind of art do you actually need, then? I mean if it's just to establish a character as romane-able...
5. Monsters and enemies of aggressive male sexuality... I'm just going to say no to this one. If you think that's unfair: Fine, it's unfair. I'll concede it. But, alarms are going off in my head from years of employing staff of both genders, and all the harassment complaints I've ever had to deal with... Here's a simple truth: In twenty years, I've never had a male employee approach me to let me know that one of the female employees was getting too aggressive.
I've been following this thread for a few days, because the OP seemed to have some reasonable wishes, and the Devs seemed to understand what he was asking for... I'm willing to understand, but there are points where I just don't...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. yes
2. Not an art thread
3. This isn't a thread about art. It's a thread about how roles are misused.
4. There really isn't too much difference as seen here
5. This isn't about the workplace. It's about sexual female characters/monster/NPCs being allowed to use their sexuality as a weapon and sexual male characters/monster/npcs not being allowed to use sexuality as a weapon, despite the lore saying they should be.
|
|
1. Isn't pretty much every NPC a potential romance option? Does someone have to be specifically listed as "romance-able" or specifically called out as "good-looking/sexually appealing" before they become a romance-able option?
May I direct you to a thread where others and I discuss precisely this sort of thing...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
5. This isn't about the workplace. It's about sexual female characters/monster/NPCs being allowed to use their sexuality as a weapon and sexual male characters/monster/npcs not being allowed to use sexuality as a weapon, despite the lore saying they should be.
Because that is often more associated with rape than anything. Look to reality for a moment, it just doesn't work that way. Well it might between gay males but nearly never in straight interaction
Because that is often more associated with rape than anything. Look to reality for a moment, it just doesn't work that way. Well it might between gay males but nearly never in straight interaction
5. This isn't about the workplace. It's about sexual female characters/monster/NPCs being allowed to use their sexuality as a weapon and sexual male characters/monster/npcs not being allowed to use sexuality as a weapon, despite the lore saying they should be.
If rape was the problem then we wouldn't have succubi in the game at all because they rape plenty. Golarian is supposed to be a lot more equal than our real world, what with discrimination based on sexual orientation being an evil act.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If rape was the problem then we wouldn't have succubi in the game at all because they rape plenty. Golarian is supposed to be a lot more equal than our real world, what with discrimination based on sexual orientation being an evil act.Because that is often more associated with rape than anything. Look to reality for a moment, it just doesn't work that way. Well it might between gay males but nearly never in straight interaction
5. This isn't about the workplace. It's about sexual female characters/monster/NPCs being allowed to use their sexuality as a weapon and sexual male characters/monster/npcs not being allowed to use sexuality as a weapon, despite the lore saying they should be.
I have a feeling that if they did go and make incubi and other sexually-charged male monsters actually do those sexually-charged acts like the female versions (succubi mostly, though there have been other examples), you will get threads about how Paizo is promoting rape culture and other such things.
I hope they continue with what they are doing, and do include some more sexualized male artwork and characters. And if Paizo did make the incubus they include (or other sexually charged male creatures) have a write-up similar to the succubus, that it doesn't bite them in the butt. Because I have a feeling that it would, and I would hate to have that happen.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If rape was the problem then we wouldn't have succubi in the game at all because they rape plenty. Golarian is supposed to be a lot more equal than our real world, what with discrimination based on sexual orientation being an evil act.Because that is often more associated with rape than anything. Look to reality for a moment, it just doesn't work that way. Well it might between gay males but nearly never in straight interaction
5. This isn't about the workplace. It's about sexual female characters/monster/NPCs being allowed to use their sexuality as a weapon and sexual male characters/monster/npcs not being allowed to use sexuality as a weapon, despite the lore saying they should be.
Ah but you know the arguement that men cannot be raped by a woman, he really wanted it and just "gave in". Even if forced by magic or drugs. On the flip side to that a woman being "talked into it" is at a level very near forcible rape in america today. So a female seducer is a "male fantasy" and a male seducer is a rape victim trigger. Golarian is supposed to be mostly gender equal. the readers are still largely the american public so those are the standards they must obey in writing
And how often has Paizo put a satyr in an adventure as opposed to the number of succubi that are regular features?
1:6 as near as i can figure, for a few reasons.
As you know most monsters in the dungeon are there to be killed with sharp pointy objects. Succubi can be smited in the face on sight. A Satyr is usually in their house/home, and good characters have to deal with them diplomatically.(I've seen ONE incubus. Of course it was while playing my only female character)
A male dms Succubus character threatening to snu snu a male players probably male character to death is funny, or at least a readily accepted part of the game.
A male dms Satyr character making lewd innuendos towards a female character (with likely a female player) is far more likely to be offensive or creepy.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A male dms Satyr character making lewd innuendos towards a female character (with likely a female player) is far more likely to be offensive or creepy.
You'd think so, but in my experience it has been otherwise. My first time playing Pathfinder with a group other than the circle of friends that introduced me to the game involved a scene where a group of orcs offered to exchange the party's freedom for my body. As you can imagine, I wasn't particularly pleased with that situation.
We all know that wouldn't have happened if I was a guy playing a guy. We don't have a lot of seducer satyrs or incubi because male players don't want them advancing on their male characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A male dms Satyr character making lewd innuendos towards a female character (with likely a female player) is far more likely to be offensive or creepy.You'd think so, but in my experience it has been otherwise..
You say that but the rest of what you say agrees with what i said, so I'm a little confused
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You say that but the rest of what you say agrees with what i said, so I'm a little confusedA male dms Satyr character making lewd innuendos towards a female character (with likely a female player) is far more likely to be offensive or creepy.You'd think so, but in my experience it has been otherwise..
It wasn't perceived as a problem by the (male) player group until I got angry about it. It was just a thing that seemed logical for a bunch of cave orcs to do.
Fortunately these guys were sensible enough to learn from it rather than defend the event, but... that's not always the case.
Oh, it's just so unfair. I have heard that in some games, there are GMs who can play the NPCs anyway they want to, use any artwork as reference that they want, instead of this mysteriously being mind-controlled by the published document. Oh, it's just so unfair.
A male dms Satyr character making lewd innuendos towards a female character (with likely a female player) is far more likely to be offensive or creepy.You'd think so, but in my experience it has been otherwise. My first time playing Pathfinder with a group other than the circle of friends that introduced me to the game involved a scene where a group of orcs offered to exchange the party's freedom for my body. As you can imagine, I wasn't particularly pleased with that situation.
We all know that wouldn't have happened if I was a guy playing a guy. We don't have a lot of seducer satyrs or incubi because male players don't want them advancing on their male characters.
Sorry to hear that story, but that was not an example of "seductiveness", it was not a seductive NPc advacing toward your char. Those situations seems widely diferent, not sure how they have to be compared.
It wasn't perceived as a problem by the (male) player group until I got angry about it. It was just a thing that seemed logical for a bunch of cave orcs to do.
And this is one reason why gaming companies toss in more evil female sex monsters. They're trying to avoid you and the rest of their customer base getting creeped out by the situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have decided that amongst my fantastic menagerie I'm working on for the Archmage setting, there will be no creatures, mundane or supernatural, whose primary concept is about sex.
This means no succubi/incubi. There can be demons that are attractive but how that is used is up to the individual. There's nothing that can be excused by 'that's just what the species does'. That, and while there is a tendency for demons to be evil, there is nothing forcing them to be.
There is a class of demon called 'demons of passion'. They can represent any number of other dangerous excesses. A lot of them are actually the transformed souls of artists that went too far and got themselves killed for art (sometimes on purpose), or artists that sold their soul to a demon for talent.
You say that but the rest of what you say agrees with what i said, so I'm a little confusedA male dms Satyr character making lewd innuendos towards a female character (with likely a female player) is far more likely to be offensive or creepy.You'd think so, but in my experience it has been otherwise..It wasn't perceived as a problem by the (male) player group until I got angry about it. It was just a thing that seemed logical for a bunch of cave orcs to do.
Fortunately these guys were sensible enough to learn from it rather than defend the event, but... that's not always the case.
I'm not sure what to think of this. There are hobgoblin witches in my campaign that would have specifically done the same thing, only in exchange for males. If that's at all different, then there's a problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You say that but the rest of what you say agrees with what i said, so I'm a little confusedA male dms Satyr character making lewd innuendos towards a female character (with likely a female player) is far more likely to be offensive or creepy.You'd think so, but in my experience it has been otherwise..It wasn't perceived as a problem by the (male) player group until I got angry about it. It was just a thing that seemed logical for a bunch of cave orcs to do.
Fortunately these guys were sensible enough to learn from it rather than defend the event, but... that's not always the case.
That was very much part of my point above. A male DM's use of a male NPC to (narrative) sexually assault or even to sexually intimidate a female gamer's female PC is a very, very bad thing.
Fair or unfair, it's not the same when a DM of any gender uses a female NPC to "seduce" a PC of any gender.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure what to think of this. There are hobgoblin witches in my campaign that would have specifically done the same thing, only in exchange for males. If that's at all different, then there's a problem.You say that but the rest of what you say agrees with what i said, so I'm a little confusedA male dms Satyr character making lewd innuendos towards a female character (with likely a female player) is far more likely to be offensive or creepy.You'd think so, but in my experience it has been otherwise..It wasn't perceived as a problem by the (male) player group until I got angry about it. It was just a thing that seemed logical for a bunch of cave orcs to do.
Fortunately these guys were sensible enough to learn from it rather than defend the event, but... that's not always the case.
It isn't any different.
The female sexual assault perpetrators usually aren't hobgoblins though. Typically, they're succubi and other creatures that are portrayed in a way that your typical straight male is going to appreciate. Which still is creepy and not okay but, you know. Male fantasies.
Completely out of line for a new player and one you don't know well either.
Right. I don't think its an accident that that gamers have a stereotype for... less than socially acceptable comments and dumping charisma.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The female sexual assault perpetrators usually aren't hobgoblins though. Typically, they're succubi and other creatures that are portrayed in a way that your typical straight male is going to appreciate. Which still is creepy and not okay but, you know. Male fantasies.
and THATS the difference.
Male reaction to the situation= Woo hoo!!*
Female reaction to the gender flipped version "ICK!"
Making a game is all about making it fun. The first usually is and the second usually isn't. (*individual exceptions as always may apply)